My apology for the duplicate postings. Having initiated this ample discussion about how to proceed with ICE-17, it seems the following have emerged: ICE-17 is an excellent document (bravo authors and contributors) and can hardly get better at present. The technical points discussed cannot change this fact either way. Ironically, the defense of ICE-17 on procedural grounds makes even less sense, since the culprit is not ICE-17, but the fact that present IETF procedures do not make a clear enough distinction that everyone can understand between I-D categories, such as: * Concept memos; see the torrent in the P2PSIP WG * Protocol standard agreements, such as for SIP * Technology solutions such as ICE-17 or hole punching for NAT traversal * I-Ds to support a business model (excuse me; I will not go there...) Sorry to repeat: Process and consensus in meetings have nothing to do with how good a technology may be. Only measurements and proof will do. How does the IETF support the proof for a technology? (Yes, I have seen all those quotes). Please remember that proving a technology also costs money. This is the reason why I trust more technologies coming out of funded R&D, especially from University research. Vendors of technology may be less likely to share such information. Question: Is a standards organization the best place to develop and promote new technology such as for NAT traversal? (all those p2p companies and Skype did not think so...) Also, be prepared, SBC traversal may come next. In conclusion, there is nothing wrong with the ICE-17 paper IMHO, but rather the IETF processes are either not satisfactory or not well understood by folks like me who avoid reading process documents longer than one web page :-) I have taken therefore the liberty to copy <ietf@xxxxxxxx> as Adam Roach has suggested. Thanks, Henry Sinnreich _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf