-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa)
> Ah, I suspect that Elwyn was gently pulling your leg about your inability to > spell "capital" (i.e. the death penalty) - "capitol" means "location of the > government"
Ahh haaadamn word...it'll pay for
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> From: Elwyn Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> a debate on the humanity of capitol punishment?
>> Do I assume that this punishment requires the malefactor to sit
>> through a set period of congressional filibusters?
> Capitol punishment is barbar
-- Original message -- From: Elwyn Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Can you imagine if during every murder trial they had a debate on the > > humanity of capitol punishment? > > > As a non-US citizen, I am a little hazy about some details of
Ned Freed
--> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:41 AM
--> To: Anthony G Atkielski
--> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
--> Subject: Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus
-->
--> > Robert Sayre writes:
-->
--> > > I suspect the IESG will find that the folk
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
writes:
>
>let's veer off... this is much more fun than other current discussions :-)
>Since a major problem for "illegal" P2P networks at the moment is dealing
>with content that is inserted maliciously (the file named "Britney Spears'
>lat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you imagine if during every murder trial they had a debate on the
humanity of capitol punishment?
As a non-US citizen, I am a little hazy about some details of the US
legal system. Do I assume that this punishment requires the malefactor
to sit through a set
> Robert Sayre writes:
> > I suspect the IESG will find that the folks actually trying to get
> > work done in the presence of JFC's emails all feel the same way. Most
> > of the objections seem to be coming from people concerned with
> > designing the perfect bureaucratic process. In any WG, ther
--On 23. januar 2006 06:26 +0200 John Loughney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 01/22/2006 22:27 PM, John Loughney allegedly wrote:
> Look at various peer-to-peer protocols as a good
> examples of things that people use everyday, but wouldn't stand a
> chance of getting an RFC.
Why not?
Now
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Can you imagine if during every murder trial they had a debate on
> the humanity of capitol punishment?
Can you imagine if, in every business meeting, people who disagreed
decided to sue each other?
> Please, if you don't have an opinion specifically related to
> Jefs
John Loughney writes:
> Now we're close to side veering off into process issues, but
> rather than going into that rat-hole, I'll just pose a question: do
> you think p2p protocol authors would have any motiviation to create
> a Security Considerations section that would pass IESG review?
Do you
Robert Sayre writes:
> I suspect the IESG will find that the folks actually trying to get
> work done in the presence of JFC's emails all feel the same way. Most
> of the objections seem to be coming from people concerned with
> designing the perfect bureaucratic process. In any WG, there are
> im
John Loughney writes:
> People who suggest ignoring or hitting delete don't seem to
> really get it ...
People who insist that this doesn't work don't seem to really get it.
It has worked for me for decades.
The reality is that some people are irritated by the need to do
anything they don't want
Now we're close to side veering off into process issues, but rather than
going into that rat-hole, I'll just pose a question: do you think p2p
protocol authors would have any motiviation to create a Security
Considerations section that would pass IESG review?
a security considerations section
> On 01/22/2006 22:27 PM, John Loughney allegedly wrote:
> > Look at various peer-to-peer protocols as a good
> > examples of things that people use everyday, but wouldn't stand a
> > chance of getting an RFC.
>
> Why not?
Now we're close to side veering off into process issues, but rather than g
On 1/22/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Please, if you don't have
> an opinion specifically related to Jefsey then stay out of the Jefsey
> discussion.
On 1/22/06, Scott W Brim wrote:
> On 01/22/2006 22:27 PM, John Loughney allegedly wrote:
> > Look at various peer-to-peer pr
-- Original message -- From: John Loughney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I am growing tired of this meta-discussion, but I just needed to add my 2 cents, > then I'll be quiet
>I cannot say if this is what Jefsey is doing, as I am not active in any of the >WGs in question.John-
On 01/22/2006 22:27 PM, John Loughney allegedly wrote:
> Look at various peer-to-peer protocols as a good
> examples of things that people use everyday, but wouldn't stand a
> chance of getting an RFC.
Why not?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https:
17 matches
Mail list logo
