Longer or more meetings?

[Marshall Rose]

> I think you've missed my point. It's not necessarily the case that
> having large vendors have the most input into a protocol is the best
> way to make it a success. While the vendors may have the most
> to gain or lose, that doesn't mean that they have the most relevant 
> expertise. It seems to me that part of the IETF theory is that 
> protocol quality is key to deployment. In many cases, that quality
> is best injected by independent people with specific expertise.

eric - i don't think that "protocol quality" is the thing that is "necessary and
sufficient". i think there are several factors that have contributed to past
success, and as much as it irks people when i point this out, i don't think that
"high quality" is one of them. i think that it's really

	just enough quality delivered in a timely fashion

philosophically, in the past we behaved as an engineering organization that
delivered incremental solutions. the 90-10 rule was our friend. market forces
understand this, and certainly big (and small vendors) do too!

there's a lot to be said for this, not the least of which is that it's much
easier to displace vacuum than an entrenched alternative...

/mtr