> We really need to get over ourselves here. We may like to think we're the > gatekeepers against standardization of bad stuff, but we're not. There are > simply too many SDOs churning out specifciations these days. > In other words, "If we don't do it, someone else will." Not even close. First, you're again totally missing the essential point here: That an experimental or informational RFC is NOT a standard. So there is no equivalency between our "doing" an experimental RFC and someone else "doing" a standard. Second, AFAIK nobody has even intimated that other standards groups are planning to standardize this particular proposal. Third, nobody has said that our publishing something about this - never mind what - will, as you imply, have any effect on what other SDOs do. In fact my main point is that our publication practices are unlikely to have any impact at all. And finally, to the extent publication as an experimental RFC would have an effect, it is that it provides a means for people to experiment with the technology and determine for themselves whether or not it is useful. And that includes evaluation of IPR issues. There is in fact "running code" that, far from always leading to increased adoption of a given proposal, publication in the form of an experimental RFC may in fact expose the problematic nature of a proposal and lead to its rejection by the community in a fashion which, has the document never been published, would not have happened. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf