> > As one example, on the topic of "one vs. multiple solutions", I know
> > the IESG will ask, why are we standardizing 3 solutions to the same
> > problem (if that is what the WG thinks it is going to do). The WG will
> > have to be able to answer that sort of question with a credible
> > response (and in some cases, a credible justification is that the
> > solutions are very different and there are different applicabilities
> > to the mechanisms -- but one needs to look at the details on this). If
> > the answer simply is "because we want to and we'll let the market
> > decide", the IESG may well come back and say fine, make them all
> > experimental, none of them on standards track. Revisit when the market
> > has decided.
>
> And what is wrong with this (make all experimental, revisit when the
> market has decided) ?
Will these specifications ever be revisited if they are deployed as
experimental, and most of the problems are solved in deployment? I
suspect that many could remain experimental for a long time.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.