g'day,
Keith Moore wrote:
. . .
> To make fundamental changes to the architecture of the Internet would
> affect a great many people with widely varying interests. Such an
> effort would therefore need to be done slowly and deliberately, with
> broad input, a great deal of care in its managemen
Greg Minshall wrote:
>
> i think there are two issues.
>
> one is that when I-Ds were created, there was some controversy, mainly
> revolving around the notion that we already had a forum for people putting out
> ideas (known as RFCs), and that the fact that the public concept of RFC was
> diffe
g'day,
Masataka Ohta wrote:
. . .
> If IETF makes it clear that AOL is not an ISP, it will commercially
> motivate AOL to be an ISP.
Not to be unkind, since the IETF has done some good work, but the above
statement is incorrect. If you'd written "If AOL perceives that the
market would punish t
g'day,
Tripp Lilley wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Peter Deutsch in Mountain View wrote:
>
> > readily accessible. I still see value in having documents come out as "Request
> > For Comments" in the traditional sense, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to find
g'day,
Fred Baker wrote:
> At 03:51 PM 4/8/00 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >If the IETF engages in routine non-acceptance of "informational" documents
> >on the basis of non-technical concerns the IETF will, I believe, lose its
> >clear and loud voice when that voice is most needed to be heard.
g'day,
Dave Crocker wrote:
. . .
> It strikes me that it would be much, much more productive to fire up a
> working group focused on this topic, since we have known of the application
> level need for about 12 years, if not longer.
Which raises the interesting question as to what the particip
g'day,
Lloyd Wood wrote:
> > Well, look at the list of signatories to the Draft in question.
>
> technical merits, please.
I was not arguing for the merits of the technology in question based upon who
signed it. In fact, I haven't tried to address the technical merits of the
specific document a
Keith Moore wrote:
> > The industry and their customers have already decided against you on
> > this one.
>
> Industry people love to make such claims. They're just marketing BS.
> The Internet isn't in final form yet and I don't expect it to stabilize
> for at least another decade. There's s
g'day,
Keith Moore wrote:
> Peter,
>
> I think that by now I've made my points and defended them adequately and
> that there is little more to be acheived by continuing a public,
> and largely personal, point-by-point argument. If you want to continue
> this in private mail I'll consider it.
O
Hi Patrik,
Patrik Fältström wrote:
>
> At 17.29 -0700 2000-04-07, Peter Deutsch wrote:
> > LD is intended to sit in front of a cluster of
> >cache engines containing similar data, performing automatic
> >distribution of incoming requests among the multiple caches. It does
> >this by intercepting
g'day,
Keith Moore wrote:
> . . . I did not call for a ban on publication of any document. I
suggested
> that the RFC Editor consider not devoting its energies to publishing
> the document - and I only suggested this after I suggested several
> things that could be done to "fix" the document.
11 matches
Mail list logo