Re: [Ospf-manet] Re: Ospf-manet Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2

The practice at the IETF is that such determination is made by the 
rough consensus of the working group (not the design team) when the 
data is available.

While I am not fond of "let the market decide", when the working 
group can not come to rough consensus there seems to be no 
alternative.  Proposals I have favored have ended up not being 
standardized on this basis.  (In one case I know of, the working 
group had actually standardized two solutions, and then had to 
deprecate one of them.)

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 11:41 AM 10/3/2006, Richard Ogier wrote:
>>If several get implemented and deployed, then we hope to learn 
>>things from that deployment.  We may discover that factors that 
>>never occurred to the working group will turn out to be 
>>important.  It may be that factors the working group thought 
>>important turn out to be irrelevant.
>
>That may sound good, but how do we define what is "important"?
>
>As you suggest below, I agree that we should focus on technical
>discussions.  For example, that is why Aniket and I have been
>explaining why the MDR approach is a "natural extension".
>This is a very important point, since once people understand
>*why* we claim it is a "natural extension", they will understand
>the MDR approach better.
>
>Richard

_______________________________________________
Ospf-manet mailing list
Ospf-manet@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-manet