Hi. A separate conversation stirred up memories of the ones at ANSI from long ago and suggests something else that should be added to the list: * A protocol specification that has the appearance of being solely the product of a single vendor or other organization is inherently dangerous and dangerous to the IETF, not just the particants. Problems can arise if a standards body rubber-stamps a one-organization specification, especially if that organization gains an advantage from standardization of its technology. First-to-implement or other market dominance factors may be as important in that regard as, e.g., licensing restrictions. WGs or others evaluating such a specification should be extra-careful to make sure that it has broad support from unaffiliated people and that the support is documented for the record in minutes, shepherd's reports, or through other mechanisms. Several of the terms above are wildly subjective, but this can be an area in which, if one wishes to avoid trouble, the appearance may be more important than hair-splitting about the realities. Just something to be considered. best, john