On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 06:29:17 PST, Kevin Farley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > IMHO, a successful WG is one whereby it has been successful been
> > adopted
> > and used by the industry.
> > -James Seng
> Like NAT?
NAT has been adopted and used by the industry. There's no consensus on
whether it w
>
> IMHO, a successful WG is one whereby it has been successful been
> adopted
> and used by the industry.
>
> -James Seng
>
>
Like NAT?
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.
>... We, at IETF, sometimes
> forget the process is there for a purpose. Particularly, this process
> foster the review among technical peers so as to produce a standard
> which is scalable, robust and actually usable.
A committee, specifically including an
I like to chip in my 5cent worth.
I think it is sometimes worthwhile to rethink on the process to a
standards vs the intention of that process. We, at IETF, sometimes
forget the process is there for a purpose. Particularly, this process
foster the review among technical peers so as to produce a s
Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Ofer Inbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > "If farmers can be paid not to grow wheat, why can't IETF
> > > WGs be paid not to develop protocols?"
> >
> > We can. Just go work for a company that is willing to send you to
> > IETF on their time & money
> From: Ofer Inbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > "If farmers can be paid not to grow wheat, why can't IETF
> > WGs be paid not to develop protocols?"
>
> We can. Just go work for a company that is willing to send you to
> IETF on their time & money, and wants you to disrupt certain IETF
> protocol wor
> Thought for the day:
>
> "If farmers can be paid not to grow wheat, why can't IETF
> WGs be paid not to develop protocols?"
We can. Just go work for a company that is willing to send you to
IETF on their time & money, and wants you to disrupt certain IETF
protocol work. I'm sure many of us ha
Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Thought for the day:
>
> "If farmers can be paid not to grow wheat, why can't IETF
> WGs be paid not to develop protocols?"
Because that would result in *more* protocols, not fewer, as many of us
would suddenly run off and start developing our own. :-)
--
/==
