> I think Brian makes an excellent point here. > RFC 1958 already contains exactly the same basic message (just with far less (unnecessary) words). > I don't think we need this document as it doesn't really add anything to what RFC 1958 says. I too object to having too many politically motivated process drafts (in addition to having questions about the specific examples in the present draft). However, I am not sure that RFC 1958 helps to much here. The relevant part of 1958 is : 3.2 If there are several ways of doing the same thing, choose one. If a previous design, in the Internet context or elsewhere, has successfully solved the same problem, choose the same solution unless there is a good technical reason not to. Duplication of the same protocol functionality should be avoided as far as possible, without of course using this argument to reject improvements. That is fine, but what if there are already two solutions (which is the case here) ? It don't see it in 1958, but the IETF tao has generally been to have one MUST mode and perhaps one or more MAY modes. RFC 4835 is a good example of how this is done. So I believe that this draft is stating something stronger than RFC 1958, and indeed stronger than the IETF tao usually requires. Y(J)S _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf