Re: of control and frogs, Re: What is at stake?

2002-01-24 Thread vint cerf
this formulation does not take into account the transfer of responsibility and authority for policy increasingly to NSF and to the so-called Federal Networking Council after about 1988. NSF's role increased substantially with the creation of the NSFNET. In any case the principal point is that the

Re: of control and frogs, Re: What is at stake?

2002-01-24 Thread Vernon Schryver
> From: Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... > Conformance discussions like the current one have been regular fodder for > Internet mailing lists for, perhaps, 15 years. They crop up every couple > of years. The group "script" for the discussion is highly consistent. > ... It's a syndrome

Re: of control and frogs, Re: What is at stake?

2002-01-24 Thread Dave Crocker
At 07:55 AM 1/24/2002 -0800, Ed Gerck wrote: >So, the really principal point behind the conformance >discussion (which, BTW, I think should be about how to >make non-conformance public rather than certifying >conformance) is that these other factors must now be >introduced in order for trust to be

Re: of control and frogs, Re: What is at stake?

2002-01-24 Thread Ed Gerck
vint cerf wrote: > this formulation does not take into account the transfer > of responsibility and authority for policy increasingly > to NSF and to the so-called Federal Networking Council > after about 1988. NSF's role increased substantially > with the creation of the NSFNET. Yes. Other poi

of control and frogs, Re: What is at stake?

2002-01-24 Thread Ed Gerck
Ari Ollikainen wrote: > At 6:53 PM -0800 1/23/02, Ed Gerck wrote: > > > >In addition, within the last ten years the Internet has changed radically > >from a centrally controlled network to a network of networks -- with no > >control point whatsoever. There is, thus, further reason to doubt the