> It all goes back to the light bulb as a great example of > standards setting - back before there was a standard base for > bulbs, I'm sure every light bulb manufacturer had a vested > interest in their pre-standard bases and sockets - whether it > screwed left or right or used push-in pins, the size of the > base, etc., You haven't tried to buy light-bulbs in England, have you? The choice is bayonet mount, or screw mount, then several size bases, not to mention halogen and spotlight mounts. If you've traveled much in Europe you will notice similar confusion with the standard plug shape. They all have the same size and position of pins but only the Swiss hexagonal plug will fit in all the sockets. Even the countries with the same size round socket and plugs managed to place the ground/earth connections in different places. And let's not mention the Soviet Union's GOST standard where the pins are 1mm in diameter smaller and 1 mm further apart. That's the reason for the split pins on many plug adapters because they have enough flex to work in sockets in Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan etc. Interoperability of standards is a hard-won prize, whether in the IETF or elsewhere. The cost of producing documents is a mere drop in the bucket. In addition, cost is a very slippery thing to get ahold of because of the difference between expenses and investments. --Michael Dillon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf