+1 john --On Wednesday, October 12, 2011 06:11 +0200 Patrik Fältström <patrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 11 okt 2011, at 22:53, Ross Callon wrote: > >>> I didn't mean to say that the IETF in general allows >>> multiple solutions but I think it is accurate to say that >>> the IETF has a less than 100% success rate of preventing >>> multiple solutions. >> >> Correct. We are not perfect. > > I had four "proposals" for chat protocols when I was Apps AD. > One of them was NOT XMPP which now later seems to be what > people use. > > My take is that: > > - If there is one proposal for a standard, it is "enough" for > that proposal to be "technically sound" > > - If there are two proposals (or more), i.e. a situation where > the market is to choose between the multiple proposals that > more or less solve the same problem, there is an additional > constraint, and that is that the proposals do not interfere > with each other > > So if one have more than one proposal on the table that all > move forward, they must be technically sound AND also not > interfere with each other. > > This 2nd requirement is something that is not as easy to > resolve as people might think. > > And specifically (we see in the MPLS case), the "bandwidth" of > the liaison connection between SDOs is not high enough to > guarantee this. We learned that the hard way between W3C and > IETF. > > Because of that the liaison coordination is only to resolve > what SDO is managing the multiple proposals. It can not handle > the synchronization between proposals. > > And this to me is a key issue the whole MPLS discussion. It is > just plain wrong to try to manage all variants of multiple > flavors of ice-cream across SDOs. And why I strongly have the > view I have on what has gone wrong. > > Patrik > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf