RE: An alternative to TCP (part 1)

[Bernard Aboba]

>As long as it is safe (i.e., follows good congestion control),
>why should we care how many of these protocols are defined?  After
>we ensure the protocols are safe we can just let Darwinism take its
>course.

Because a customer with sufficient $ would inevitably request the
Frobnitz Transport, since it garnered the IETF imprimateur and
the code base would eventually collapse under the weight of all this
"innovation". 

================================================================
Thought for the day:

"If farmers can be paid not to grow wheat, why can't IETF
WGs be paid not to develop protocols?"