On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Noel Chiappa <[email protected]> wrote: > On Nov 13, 2013, at 10:49 AM, Ole Troan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > is there a problem here, or should we just accept that sometimes the > > IETF will generate ten sets of publications solving more or less the > > same problem? > > This has been a longstanding issue in the IETF (and its predecessors, I'd > have to check some of these dates) - going back to HEMS/SGMP, OSPF/IS-IS, > etc. > > My long-standing personal position is that the IETF is pretty good at > _producing and vetting_ designs, but less good at _chosing_ from similar > alternatives. I think it's better if, when we can't agree, to let the users > decide which works best for them. > > Yes, yes, I know, this is in some ways painful - resources get wasted on > duplicate efforts; some users wind up with investments in standards that > dead-end (think Betamax, etc); etc. But at the same time, making a choice can > produce lengthy, extensive painful politics and wrangling, too. So there are > down-sides both ways. > > My bottom line: we're not infinitely smart, and have only limited > foresight. Some things you can only learn by trying things. >
+1. The IETF does not engineer the internet. The internet emerges from various independent actors greedily optimizing for themselves. The best the IETF can do is facilitate collaboration for these self-optimizing actors and document some of what is learned. CB > Noel _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
