Re: IPv7 Selection Criteria

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

Yakov,

    May be one way to accomplish this is to say that the IETF *is not*
    going to vote on IPv7, but would rather leave this to the marketplace.
    Instead, the IETF would just provide an environment where different
    proposals for IPv7 would be developed, tested and reviewed. The role
    of the IETF should also be the place where the "rough edges" of many
    of the proposals could be worked off. It is unfortunate that presently

This seems to be exactly what is, in fact, happening.  The framework,
however, is not strictly laissez faire.  I believe that the pressure of
milestones, coordinated public presentations & demonstrations, and general
sense of on-going review within the IETF provides a real-world filter.

I consider this to be "letting the market decide" but with the IETF providing
leadership to the market process.  

    we have a split into design teams. This split may actually be the root
    of the problem. It is not clear that this work could not have been done
    colloboratively instead of competition.

Yes, it would be nice.  Unfortunately, long history leads one to
conclude that groups with very different views of the path to solving
a problem do not work well as one group.  (Though the general pattern
of corss-membership among the IPv7 efforts has been better than I've
seen before.)

On the other hand, some related efforts, such as upgrading the DNS, 
seem to involve technical efforts that are not distinctive to any one
group.  Combining efforts, there, would very much seem to make sense.
    
    Note that there is still a strong role for the criteria. They
    should reflect the needs of the users of "open systems and networking".
    People working on proposals should use these to guide their work.

Yup.  That's why I'm hoping the criteria are increasingly objective and
easy to apply.
    
Dave