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
different
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
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
ways to better distingui
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
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 the
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.
Okay,
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 still
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 at
