On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 03:42:14PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: > Phill, > > Just picking out the nub of your message: > > >There is however one area that should be made very explicit as a non > >issue for DISCUSS, failure to employ a specific technology platform. > > > >I have been concerned on a number of occasions where it has appeared > >that in order to get a specification approved by the IESG it would be > >necessary to adopt a particular technology being promoted by IESG > >members. > > I think the last phrase is unfair - if the IETF is putting a lot of effort > into technology Foo, then it's a legitimate question to ask "Why aren't > you re-using Foo?" But we do have as a non-criterion: > > o Disagreement with informed WG decisions that do not exhibit > problems outlined in Section 3.1. In other words, disagreement in > preferences among technically sound approaches. > > As I read this, it would be legitimate for an AD to ask > > Did the WG consider Foo, and if so, have good reasons for > rejecting it in favour of Bar? > > and illegitimate to say > > I like Foo more than Bar, so I'm blocking this. > > If we agree on this, some wordsmithing may be needed. > > Brian There are occasions when limiting the number of deployed solutions is very good for the future of the Internet, and in those cases, pushing for Foo even when Bar is just as good is quite legitimate. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf