Scott, If IPv8 meets all of the criteria of an IETF protocol it should be labeled as an IETF protocol. I don't remember the verb "blessed" being operational in the IETF, perhaps I should reread the RFCs for it. The point is, instead of people peering into the future in a star chamber, one can presume that the world is inhabited by rationale actors and the "right outcomes" will occur. Let's ask a different question: what is the empirical evidence for " 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."? Is there a demonstrable case/occasion for this point? It seems that maintaining the charter to spec-ing and establishing interoperable Internet protocols should be a guiding principle. Regards, peterf -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott W Brim Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 08:56 To: Yakov Rekhter Cc: IETF Discussion Subject: Re: When to DISCUSS? On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 08:21:57AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter allegedly wrote: > > 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. So you would have blessed IPv8? _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf