> 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 mo
> 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
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. Si
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 reg
> 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 ] ---
> -->
>
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 t
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,
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
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
th
> 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
10 matches
Mail list logo
