> I think this is part of "divide and conquer" that is > generally argued to be > an useful strategy in the IETF: once we buckle down and start writing > specs, we're documenting one approach, with one set of advantages and > disadvantages, and are trying to prove that *this approach* > is feasible. We > did that to (I believe) OSPF, IPNG after the "pick one" > round, PKIX (vs > SPKI), IM when it was split into SIMPLE and the 2 > alternatives (with XMPP > being a late 4th) and so on. Each of these groups could > regard the "what > are the alternatives" question as out of scope. > > I think that's a good way to get things out the door in a reasonable > timeframe; I also think that the IETF at the moment lacks > venues for the > (probably interminable) discussions about what approaches to > a problem > exists and whether there are non-chartered alternatives that > are worth > following up - but I think the approach of chartering a WG to > look at one > and only one approach is a reasonable one. Well said, I agree completely. pat _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf