What fascinates me about p2p is that it was clearly the
next Big Thing, but there seems to be no feedback loop
operating whatsoever.
At the risk of birthing a much unwanted tangent, I think it would have been
somewhat egocentric for the IETF to do anything that lent legitimacy to the
p2p
Michael Thomas wrote:
Scott W Brim wrote:
On 09/15/2005 17:09 PM, Paul Hoffman allegedly wrote:
At 1:50 PM -0700 9/15/05, Michael Thomas wrote:
Which is pretty much the elephant in the room, I'd say. How
much of the net traffic these days is, essentially, not in
any way standardized, and
Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Up to a point, but there are limits to what we can do.
We can request that the RFC Editor not publish things we
think are damaging. The IESG does this a few times a year.
Similarly, we can request that IANA not register things we
think are damaging, or at
Scott W Brim sbrim@cisco.com writes:
The metaphor I'm trying to use this week is that the IETF is
landscapers and we provide a fertile, beautiful area for people to go
wild and create excellent gardens.
Exactly. The beauty of TCP/IP (and indeed many protocols when done
well) is that they are
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Up to a point, but there are limits to what we can do.
We can request that the RFC Editor not publish things we
think are damaging. The IESG does this a few times a year.
Similarly, we can request that IANA not register things we
Brian writes
Sigh. That's exactly my point; our stewardship role is really
limited to advocacy and to providing better altermatives. I
don't see where you can find special pleading, vast
political influence, force or anointed in what I wrote.
I think we would do well to avoid polemic
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian E Carpenter writes:
Michael Thomas wrote:
Perfect. And then someone with less clue decided to
plant Kudzu. We have nothing to say about that?
I just read today that kudzu extract may reduce the desire
for alcohol (Scientific American, 8/2005, p 17). What
On Sep 16, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian E Carpenter
writes:
Michael Thomas wrote:
Perfect. And then someone with less clue decided to
plant Kudzu. We have nothing to say about that?
I just read today that kudzu extract may reduce
From: Gray, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Philip,
Apology in advance if this seems to be removed from
context, but your statement (below) seems to have been made
generally and is
not self consistent. Perhaps you could clarify it somewhat?
--- [ SNIP ] ---
--
-- Sure
Generally, the existence of an assignment authority does encourage
its (proper) use - mostly for the reason you state above. Just as
nobody will want to accept an official registration polluted by
prior use, nobody (deliberately in quotes) will want to attempt
to establish an unofficial
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
I know that we aren't the net.cops, but are we not
net.stewards either?
Up to a point, but there are limits to what we can do.
We can request that the RFC Editor not publish things we think
are damaging. The IESG does this a few times a year.
Behalf Of Michael Thomas
This is more or less what I had in mind. Correct me if
I'm wrong, but http 1.0 wasn't the invention of the ietf,
but sprang forth outside of its purview. Http 1.1 was a
response to the many difficulties placed on the net because
of http 1.0, and there was an
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 5:32 PM -0700 9/14/05, Michael Thomas wrote:
You mean we could invent Bitorrent? :)
BitTorrent (note the spelling) does a lot of very nice things, but not
those. For those interested, the BitTorrent protocol is described at
http://www.bittorrent.com/protocol.html.
At 1:50 PM -0700 9/15/05, Michael Thomas wrote:
Always the risk when one is being flippant, but I only
meant that the world outside of ietf seems to be taking
on a lot of these issues without ietf's advice and consent.
Fully agree.
In this case, there is no advantage to the developer of the
On 09/15/2005 17:09 PM, Paul Hoffman allegedly wrote:
At 1:50 PM -0700 9/15/05, Michael Thomas wrote:
Which is pretty much the elephant in the room, I'd say. How
much of the net traffic these days is, essentially, not in
any way standardized, and in fact probably considers ietf
old and in the
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 1:50 PM -0700 9/15/05, Michael Thomas wrote:
Which is pretty much the elephant in the room, I'd say. How
much of the net traffic these days is, essentially, not in
any way standardized, and in fact probably considers ietf
old and in the way?
Not sure why this is an
Scott W Brim wrote:
On 09/15/2005 17:09 PM, Paul Hoffman allegedly wrote:
At 1:50 PM -0700 9/15/05, Michael Thomas wrote:
Which is pretty much the elephant in the room, I'd say. How
much of the net traffic these days is, essentially, not in
any way standardized, and in fact probably
On 16-sep-2005, at 1:00, Michael Thomas wrote:
I'm not sure; maybe it's really a mutual non-admiration
society, and everybody's happy? But it's an elephant
insofar as it's pretty darn big trafficwise, and the
fact that ietf doesn't seem concerned?
Why should the IETF be concerned
At 5:32 PM -0700 9/14/05, Michael Thomas wrote:
Ned Freed wrote:
Such a third party would act as a repository for update information
provided by
vendors. Applications would then call home to one of these repositories
rather than directly to the vendor. Various anonymyzing tricks could be
19 matches
Mail list logo
