Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 11:29:34PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:50:44AM +, Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 32 lines which said: in the IETF, the naysayers pretty much kick the consenting adults' asses every day and twice on sunday. and that's the real problem here, i finally think. Time to have a formal representation of end-users at the IETF? What is defined as an 'end-user'? You, me, the rest of the people, are all end-users IMHO. That we might have quite a bit more knowledge on how things work and that we might have some connections to people so that we can arrange things, is nothing of an advantage over people who are not technically inclined (or how do you put that nicely ;) The point is that those people don't know better and as such they also don't know what is possible and what they are missing. Arguably, anyone can join the IETF, and represent themself. However, there is a steep learning curve, especially for those people who don't have much if any technical background, in order to participate meaningfully. For example, I know of people who would like IP addresses to encode physical locations such as the country and city, so they can use this information to decide which ads to serve (or to block), or to enforce DRM. But if they come to the IETF lists and ask for this capability (or why it can't be provided), at best, they'll be told that's not the way things are done. Instead, they go to companies that are willing to sell them databases that presumably map IP addresses geographically to a high degree of accuracy, at least to the country level. Eg, if you tell somebody oh but I have a /27 IPv4 and a /48 IPv6 at home and I can access all my computers from the Internet wherever I am, they will be going and? why would I need that. The typical lay-man end-user really couldn't care less, as long as their stuff works. The only people really noticing problems with this are hobbyists and most likely the gaming crowd trying to setup their own gameserver and finding out that they are stuck behind this thing called NAT. P2P people, thus quite a large group of people using the Internet today, have their tools to nice NAT tricks, thus these won't notice it. And for the rest of the population the Internet consists of http:// and https:// if they even recognize those two things, thus most likely only www and email, the latter likely only over a webinterface... Actually, one could argue that this suggests that NAT is an engineering success, even if it is architecturally flawed, because it serves the needs of a majority of users, causes problems in only a few cases, and isn't mandatory. Users can get non-NAT access, depending upon how much money and/or effort they're willing to expend. (Granted, this doesn't take into account the arguments about how future applications may be inhibited by NAT, or how certain security measures are more difficult to enforce.) Which group do you want to 'involve' in the IETF and more-over, why? Last time I checked the IETF was doing protocols and not user interfaces. I'd like to see the general level of user understanding of the capabilities of Internet protocols raised. However, I don't know how this can be accomplished without a lot of effort on the users' parts to come up to speed. --gregbo ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)
Paul Hoffman wrote: Why the IETF? Why not ISOC, an organization that has expertise and experience is asking such questions? ISOC already has local chapters throughout the world, ISOC has a friendly membership policy, and ISOC has good relations with the IETF for discussing proposed improvements to the Internet. I founded an ISOC chapter some years ago among others to see how users could provide input to the standards development process. However, there is no mechanism to consult, collect and present such information in an organized way. You could say that, as an ISOC trustee, I would need to submit a proposal to the board, and this is exactly what I intend to do. Keep in mind though that those volunteers in chapters may expect that some consideration and feedback is being given to their (sometimes non technical) comments. If they are by default considered irrelevant, hobbyist rubbish, this may kill the process in the egg. Part of the goal of this discussion, for me, is to see how the IETF community welcomes such a proposal. If I get the impression that it is not supported, I won't spend more time on it. Patrick . ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)
As the original blog poster, let me answer and expand a bit: Jeroen Massar wrote: What is defined as an 'end-user'? You, me, the rest of the people, are all end-users IMHO. From those one billion Internet users, there are several millions IT professionals who do not participate in the IETF work either because they are not inclined to, or because their employer does not see which return such time investment would bring to the company. They provide services to millions of end users and they are confronted on a daily basis with issues that could be addressed by enhancing or drafting new standards. These people have the knowledge. They are not hobbyists. Over the last ten years, I explained a zillion times to my management, workmates, etc. why e-mail addresses cannot contain accented characters, only to be asked when the IT department of the organization is going to fix it. This is the archetypical example of an issue that has been known since the days of RFC821/822. Yet, work to address this has only started a year ago, although I am conscious there were some intermediate step needed, like Unicode. Please don't ask me to complain to my software vendor. At best, I am being told that their software is standards-compliant. So, if the end user/customer cannot get the supplier to proactively propose new standards, there has to be a way to escalate the issue to whatever body that can solve it. My proposal for the IETF would be to ask the actual users, large and small, through different mechanisms to be defined, what are the issues that limit their use of the Internet, see what is relevant to the IETF work and assign priorities to the development of new standards. As for the average end user: I am sure that my grandfather would have liked to be able to type an e-mail, including recipient names, with accented characters. He was already able to do so for letters and envelopes on his typing machine in the 1920's. My neighbour may not know what an IPv6 /64 is. He may however understand that he will have a lot of home devices connected to the Internet on his home network in a few years from now, and this may require some segmentation, which a /64 does not provide. Actually, I hope my neighbour will never have to know about these details, and that his home router will figure this out automatically. Patrick Vande Walle -- Patrick Vande Walle Check my blog at http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Jabber me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)
Over the last ten years, I explained a zillion times to my management, workmates, etc. why e-mail addresses cannot contain accented characters, only to be asked when the IT department of the organization is going to fix it. This is the archetypical example of an issue that has been known since the days of RFC821/822. Yet, work to address this has only started a year ago, although I am conscious there were some intermediate step needed, like Unicode. For this to work, we need a way to display that address on devices which do not have the complete set of Unicode glyphs installed. And we also need a way to display a representation of the address that can be used to unambiguously input the address on a device which does not understand the full set of Unicode glyphs. This was discussed a couple of days ago in this message http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47925.html regarding deprecating RFC 1345 because it is the wrong solution to the problem. In fact, it may be necessary to attach a language tag (defined in RFC 4646 and 4647) to these addresses in order to make this fully possible. For instance, there is a Norwegian mans' name which is usually written Hakon in English. In Norwegian, the letter a is written with a small ring attached to the top. This ring represents that the name is pronounced more like Hokon than Hakon. Nevertheless, it is standard for people to us a double a to represent this glyph (a-ring) when writing Norwegian with devices which do not have the a-ring glyph. But Haakon is even more misleading to English eyes. In order for an email display and entry device to fully make sense of addresses which contain a glyph not available on the device, it may be necessary to know both the language tag of the device user, as well as the language tag of the address. I'm sure that many people are working on this problem, but most of this work is happening outside of the IETF. Perhaps even in commercial ventures like Mozilla's new email company, http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/press/mozilla-2007-09-17.html --Michael Dillon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)
Daniel Senie wrote: At 04:18 AM 9/20/2007, you wrote: Interesting discussion. I am envolved in two groups develloping around OpenWRT. One group (some 2000 members) is trying to TORify a dollar 150 router the other group (some 30 members) is trying to IPv6 that very same software. I dont know how big the OpenWRT devellopers group is. They are end-users, all of them. End users? Interesting. Though I've been in the software, systems and networking business for 25 years, I don't know what TORify means. Step back and look around. Getting more of us geeks providing end user feedback is not functional. That's how we get to having cameras, cell phones and most other electronics with user interfaces that non-geeks can't understand. TOR is The Onion Router. The people are afraid of the gouvernement spying on them, that is why everybody is talking about anonymisation tools. Some people do provide them for free. We are not good models of the term end user. I guess you are right :) Cheers Peter and Karin -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)
Daniel Senie wrote: At 04:18 AM 9/20/2007, you wrote: Interesting discussion. I am envolved in two groups develloping around OpenWRT. One group (some 2000 members) is trying to TORify a dollar 150 router the other group (some 30 members) is trying to IPv6 that very same software. I dont know how big the OpenWRT devellopers group is. They are end-users, all of them. End users? Interesting. Though I've been in the software, systems and networking business for 25 years, I don't know what TORify means. Step back and look around. Getting more of us geeks providing end user feedback is not functional. That's how we get to having cameras, cell phones and most other electronics with user interfaces that non-geeks can't understand. TOR is The Onion Router. The people are afraid of the gouvernement spying on them, that is why everybody is talking about anonymisation tools. Some people do provide them for free. We are not good models of the term end user. I guess you are right :) Cheers Peter and Karin -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)
On Sep 20, 2007, at 6:29 PM, Peter Dambier wrote: Daniel Senie wrote: At 04:18 AM 9/20/2007, you wrote: Interesting discussion. I am envolved in two groups develloping around OpenWRT. One group (some 2000 members) is trying to TORify a dollar 150 router the other group (some 30 members) is trying to IPv6 that very same software. I dont know how big the OpenWRT devellopers group is. They are end-users, all of them. End users? Interesting. Though I've been in the software, systems and networking business for 25 years, I don't know what TORify means. Step back and look around. Getting more of us geeks providing end user feedback is not functional. That's how we get to having cameras, cell phones and most other electronics with user interfaces that non-geeks can't understand. TOR is The Onion Router. hello peter and Daniel, all i am using openwrt / White russian for my test enviroment, i guess you mean this https://www.agol.dk/elgaard/torap/ there is an impressive list of software for openwrt http:// downloads.openwrt.org/backports/0.9/ greetings from an enduser;) marcM. -- there's no place like 127.0.0.1 until we found ::1 -- which is even bigger web: http://www.let.de___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)
At 4:24 PM +0200 9/20/07, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: My proposal for the IETF would be to ask the actual users, large and small, through different mechanisms to be defined, what are the issues that limit their use of the Internet, see what is relevant to the IETF work and assign priorities to the development of new standards. Why the IETF? Why not ISOC, an organization that has expertise and experience is asking such questions? ISOC already has local chapters throughout the world, ISOC has a friendly membership policy, and ISOC has good relations with the IETF for discussing proposed improvements to the Internet. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I18n of email addresses (Was: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 04:13:01PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 49 lines which said: In fact, it may be necessary to attach a language tag (defined in RFC 4646 and 4647) to these addresses in order to make this fully possible. That would be a very bad idea. Email deals with scripts, not with languages. What language should be attached to my name? (I'm french but my name is german.) And to coca-cola.com? I'm sure that many people are working on this problem, Sure, specially in the Far East, demos of I18N software for email are common but all use non-standard tricks, they do not interoperate and they do not fallback gracefully when encountering an old email gateway. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I18n of email addresses (Was: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)
How about http://xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d/ and their email can be found: ; DiG 9.4.0b4 -t any xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d @ns5.ce.net.cn. ; (1 server found) ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 59227 ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 4, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d.IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION: xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800IN A 210.51.169.151 xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800IN NS ns5.ce.net.cn. xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800IN MX 10 mail.xn--8pRu44H.xn--55Qx5D. xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800IN SOA ns5.ce.net.cn. tech.ce.net.cn. 2004072009 3600 900 1209600 1800 ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: mail.xn--8pRu44H.xn--55Qx5D. 1800 INA 211.157.122.194 ;; Query time: 405 msec ;; SERVER: 210.51.171.200#53(210.51.171.200) ;; WHEN: Thu Sep 20 23:18:00 2007 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 196 I remember exchanging emails with them at least once. Standard Thunderbird, Linux. Mailer exim 4.0 Bind 9.4.0 I remember it worked with djbdns too. No, I did not have a language tag. There were no tricks besides using the Cesidian Root for DNS. I guess the chinese used their native root. Kind regards Peter and Karin Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 04:13:01PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 49 lines which said: In fact, it may be necessary to attach a language tag (defined in RFC 4646 and 4647) to these addresses in order to make this fully possible. That would be a very bad idea. Email deals with scripts, not with languages. What language should be attached to my name? (I'm french but my name is german.) And to coca-cola.com? I'm sure that many people are working on this problem, Sure, specially in the Far East, demos of I18N software for email are common but all use non-standard tricks, they do not interoperate and they do not fallback gracefully when encountering an old email gateway. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:50:44AM +, Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 32 lines which said: in the IETF, the naysayers pretty much kick the consenting adults' asses every day and twice on sunday. and that's the real problem here, i finally think. Time to have a formal representation of end-users at the IETF? http://patrick.vande-walle.eu/internet/how-can-the-engineering-community-and-the-users-meet/ (My personal worry about this proposal is that there is zero organisation of end-users at this time. ALAC, mentioned by Vande Walle, is a complete failure.) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)
At 10:11 PM +0200 9/19/07, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: Time to have a formal representation of end-users at the IETF? http://patrick.vande-walle.eu/internet/how-can-the-engineering-community-and-the-users-meet/ (My personal worry about this proposal is that there is zero organisation of end-users at this time. ALAC, mentioned by Vande Walle, is a complete failure.) Given that ICANN's ALAC is the example that has had the most effort put behind it, and it is indeed a complete failure, why do you think the IETF would do any better? Or, even if we did do better in the long run, that the huge amount of effort it would take would not have been better spent on technical matters? --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:50:44AM +, Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 32 lines which said: in the IETF, the naysayers pretty much kick the consenting adults' asses every day and twice on sunday. and that's the real problem here, i finally think. Time to have a formal representation of end-users at the IETF? What is defined as an 'end-user'? You, me, the rest of the people, are all end-users IMHO. That we might have quite a bit more knowledge on how things work and that we might have some connections to people so that we can arrange things, is nothing of an advantage over people who are not technically inclined (or how do you put that nicely ;) The point is that those people don't know better and as such they also don't know what is possible and what they are missing. Eg, if you tell somebody oh but I have a /27 IPv4 and a /48 IPv6 at home and I can access all my computers from the Internet wherever I am, they will be going and? why would I need that. The typical lay-man end-user really couldn't care less, as long as their stuff works. The only people really noticing problems with this are hobbyists and most likely the gaming crowd trying to setup their own gameserver and finding out that they are stuck behind this thing called NAT. P2P people, thus quite a large group of people using the Internet today, have their tools to nice NAT tricks, thus these won't notice it. And for the rest of the population the Internet consists of http:// and https:// if they even recognize those two things, thus most likely only www and email, the latter likely only over a webinterface... Which group do you want to 'involve' in the IETF and more-over, why? Last time I checked the IETF was doing protocols and not user interfaces. Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)
I think this largely depends on what is defined as an end-user. The reason the ALAC is failure is that there is a complete mismatch between the stuff ICANN does and what these end users THINK ICANN does or should be doing. The ALAC members are largely made up of civil society or political science folks with an agenda and a strong passion for international travel -- and most of all a desire to be HEARD, no matter how irrelevant their topic is. The only thing I could suggest that would make sense in the case of the IETF would be an improved linkage to the OPERATOR community (e.g. NANOG), but I don't really think the IETF wants or needs to hear from my father, born in 1919, even if he is indeed an Internet end-user. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Paul Hoffman wrote: Given that ICANN's ALAC is the example that has had the most effort put behind it, and it is indeed a complete failure, why do you think the IETF would do any better? Or, even if we did do better in the long run, that the huge amount of effort it would take would not have been better spent on technical matters? --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)
I'd be careful about using the ICANN/ALAC example as proving much of anything other than if a group wishes to set up some window-dressing so it can say users are consulted, and ensures that the users have no particular influence in the group's activities (compared to every other represented interest group), that then you get an ineffective outcome. I'd expect that in the unlikely event the IETF were to go down this road, they would actually use Internet tools to organize people and discussions, and that the process would be colored with far more good sense, good faith and good will. That doesn't mean it would work or that you should do it -- the obstacles are real and serious -- just that I don't think you can generalize from a process, the ALAC, that was not engineered to work so much as to generate good news coverage. Indeed, ALAC is there because there was some powerful end-user representation in ICANN 1.0, and the powers that be didn't like the Mensheviks. On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Paul Hoffman wrote: At 10:11 PM +0200 9/19/07, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: Time to have a formal representation of end-users at the IETF? http://patrick.vande-walle.eu/internet/how-can-the-engineering-community-and-the-users-meet/ (My personal worry about this proposal is that there is zero organisation of end-users at this time. ALAC, mentioned by Vande Walle, is a complete failure.) Given that ICANN's ALAC is the example that has had the most effort put behind it, and it is indeed a complete failure, why do you think the IETF would do any better? Or, even if we did do better in the long run, that the huge amount of effort it would take would not have been better spent on technical matters? --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin |Professor of Law| [EMAIL PROTECTED] U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm --It's warm here.-- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [SPAM] Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)
My very first contribution to this mailing list - pardon me, I am nervous :-) . I agree with suggestion that it would make more sense to improve linkages to the OPERATOR community (e.g.NANOG) as opposed to the end-user. I follow the discussions on this forum but admit that although technically inclined, sometimes these discussions are simply beyond me and I tend to think that the focus is so much on the needs of the developed world that hardly anything is relevant nor takes the Pacific situation into consideration. Having said that I believe if IETF were to pursue improved linkages through the OPERATOR community, in our case PACNOG - it would generally improve our knowledge on what is happening within IETF as ultimately the decisions made at this level affect everyone (end-users) using the Internet. The onus, of course, would be on us (in the pacific) to build our capacity to comprehend and actively participate in IETF processes, but I agree the operator community would be a great starting point. Lynnold M Wini Solomon Telekom Co Ltd Honiara, Solomon Islands Ole Jacobsen wrote: I think this largely depends on what is defined as an end-user. The reason the ALAC is failure is that there is a complete mismatch between the stuff ICANN does and what these end users THINK ICANN does or should be doing. The ALAC members are largely made up of civil society or political science folks with an agenda and a strong passion for international travel -- and most of all a desire to be HEARD, no matter how irrelevant their topic is. The only thing I could suggest that would make sense in the case of the IETF would be an improved linkage to the OPERATOR community (e.g. NANOG), but I don't really think the IETF wants or needs to hear from my father, born in 1919, even if he is indeed an Internet end-user. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Paul Hoffman wrote: Given that ICANN's ALAC is the example that has had the most effort put behind it, and it is indeed a complete failure, why do you think the IETF would do any better? Or, even if we did do better in the long run, that the huge amount of effort it would take would not have been better spent on technical matters? --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
