*> *> I can think of some possible reasons, not necessarily exclusive *> *> - this is a bad idea/impossible to do well, so we shouldn't do it *> - some other organization is already doing it, so we shouldn't *> - we're too stupid to get it right, so we shouldn't do it *> - the IETF is too large, so we shouldn't be adding more work *>
Harald, Here is one more to consider: maybe it is outside the mainstream of the Internet architecture. [Optimizing to leave IP out of the stack and do direct L2 communication certainly SOUNDS like a retrograde step to me, too. Twenty years ago I was arguing with a UCLA professor, who insisted that IP was too much overhead and that he needed to do direct LAN transmission to get adequate performance for his distributed file system. He eventually figured out the fallacy, because the product produced by his company had the IP layer in place. Have we forgotten these lessons?] There is an infinite number of variations on the technology that the IETF COULD develop, and for every one, there is some vendor or set of vendors who would love to be able to sell sanctioned boxes. That does not mean it is in the best interest of the community or the technology to develop them all. I believe that the IESG needs to say NO more often. I know that's tough, but that's why we chose such excellent members of the IESG. Bob Braden
