On 3/24/2010 8:44 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On 24/Mar/10 09:38, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Because the IETF is about creating Intellectual Properties regarding
networksing. Not a Political Action Committee...
That's the worst definition of the IETF I've ever heard! I don't
believe that, and don't think ISOC believes that either.
I would assume that if ISOC thought we were doing something besides the
mission described in http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3935.txt, that RFC
wouldn't still be BCP 95...
The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF.
the Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment
to openness and fairness.
But the IETF is not open to opinions which vary from its core stated
opinion, and that is constrained by the people speaking for the IETF as
a whole. Its one of the key flaws in giving a technologist a voice
beyond being a technologist. As to fairness BULL SH*T. The IETF is
anything but fair or open in form.
Also, I'd never have guessed that the "IP" thing regarding networking
that the IETF is about could be "Intellectual Property".
Then what is an IETF Standard? - it is pure intellectual property and
the refusal by the IETF to embrace that is one of the issues the IETF faces.
Ietf mailing list