On Apr 18, 2011, at 1:23 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
If ADSP is too weak or dangerous a protocol, and there are no current viable
alternatives, then failing to beat the streets to get the industry to deploy
it is an act of responsibility, not one of omission or laziness.
My feeling is that it conflicts with too many (would-be) industry third
parties' self interest in
selling reputation/policy, and hence why the FUD bullhorn was on full blast
through the entire
exercise, and remains on to this day.
Could you provide some evidence of reputation/policy vendors spreading FUD
about ADSP? Press releases, blog posts, even links to mailing list archives.
It's possible that it happened, but if so I'd really like to know who was doing
it.
--
J.D. Falk
the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html