Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:50:44AM +0000,
Paul Vixie <paul(_at_)vix(_dot_)com> wrote
a message of 32 lines which said:
in the IETF, the naysayers pretty much kick the consenting adults'
asses every day and twice on sunday. and that's the real problem
here, i finally think.
Time to have a formal representation of end-users at the IETF?
What is defined as an 'end-user'?
You, me, the rest of the people, are all end-users IMHO.
That we might have quite a bit more knowledge on how things work and
that we might have some connections to people so that we can arrange
things, is nothing of an advantage over people who are not technically
inclined (or how do you put that nicely ;)
The point is that those people don't know better and as such they also
don't know what is possible and what they are missing.
Eg, if you tell somebody "oh but I have a /27 IPv4 and a /48 IPv6 at
home and I can access all my computers from the Internet wherever I am",
they will be going "and? why would I need that". The typical lay-man
end-user really couldn't care less, as long as their stuff works.
The only people really noticing problems with this are hobbyists and
most likely the gaming crowd trying to setup their own gameserver and
finding out that they are stuck behind this thing called "NAT".
P2P people, thus quite a large group of people using the Internet today,
have their tools to nice NAT tricks, thus these won't notice it.
And for the rest of the population the Internet consists of http:// and
https:// if they even recognize those two things, thus most likely only
"www" and "email", the latter likely only over a webinterface...
Which group do you want to 'involve' in the IETF and more-over, why?
Last time I checked the IETF was doing protocols and not user interfaces.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Ietf mailing list