> for some, "let the market decide" is a religious statement. it's > generally based on an unexamined faith in market conditions as an > effective way of making a good choice among competing technologies. I don't accept the ideological case for or against free markets. My point here is limited to the case in which a working group is unable to come to consensus over two disjoint proposals and each group refuses to compromise with the other. Agreement would certainly be the best outcome in the case where the differences are due to personality issues. But there are also cases where one proposal is in fact distinctly inferior, usually because the adherents are bought into some obsolete dogma or other. For example there is no way to negotiate a compromise between die hard adherents to the end-to-end security primciple and proposnents of an edge based security system. The two architectural views are entirely incompatible and cannot possibly be reconciled. What I have observed in these divisions is that it is actually quite rare to have two factions of implementers. What is much more common is that you have a group of folk who are building something and another group of rock throwers who won't build much more than a bunch of prototype code that only worksw with their own system. In other words letting the market decide comes down to who has the best code and the best deployment strategy. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf