On 10/17/2012 12:23 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
* 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.
If a spec has broad support, it doesn't matter where it came from. If a spec does not have broad support, it doesn't matter where it came from.
The essential concern is reviewing initial and continuing support. It's an issue for many different possible IETF activities, not just those with an initial specification coming from a single source.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net