Scott, > 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. Limiting the number of deployed solutions should be done based on the operational experience/market forces, and not by ADs/IESG pushing for a particular solution. Yakov. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf