Todd writes...
> What this also does is places a real-world value on a
> gettng an RFC however which is further complicated by WG Chairs
> who get to decide what is advanced as a RFC -
I, too, will probably regret plunging in here, but...
Informational and Experimental RFCs are commonly issued by the
RFC Editor, based on individual Internet Draft submissions that
have not been through any working group. What I think you mean
is a Standards Track RFC. And, yes, those documents that attain
Standards status must, and should, IMHO, go through the IETF
process of WG consensus and IESG approval.
Someone once said "the nice thing about standards is that we
have so many of them to choose from". They were being sarcastic,
of course. Forming Internet Community standards on any and every
possible solution to a problem is not to be desired. It creates
confusion and fractionalization, and does not lead to
interoperable solutions.
> bluntly because of this I think that
> their actions are or may be tantamount to restraint of trade.
I don't agree. If your competing solution is so very much
superior to the standardized one, then you may let the market
decide on its success. If its not so very much superior, then
the benefit of interoperable solutions, based on the standard,
probably outweighs whatever [marginal] technical benefit is to
be obtained in your competing solution.
Sometimes less is more...
Regards,
Dave Nelson
(giving my personal opinion, not that of my employer)