ietf-openproxy
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: opes and technology picks

2001-06-22 15:43:52


http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/select/1098/int.html

"POSTEL: It's perfectly appropriate to be upset. I thought of it in a
slightly different way--like a space that we were exploring and, in the
early days, we figured out this consistent path through the space: IP, TCP,
and so on. What's been happening over the last few years is that the IETF is
filling the rest of the space with every alternative approach, not
necessarily any better. Every possible alternative is now being written
down. And it's not useful."



----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
To: "Vernon Schryver" <vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: opes and technology picks


When you have a big standards organization like the IETF, groups that
work
on bad ideas are very much desirable.  They soak up the attention of
go-ers, salescritters, loons, and career managers.

they also soak up time of other well-meaning IETF participants, not the
least
IESGers who have to review their documents and try to do damage control.

some of us have joked about forming a Golgafrinchian Ark B working group,
and
some of us have seriously considered doing it.  but in my experience the
groups that are out of control really do waste a lot of resources that
could
be better spent elsewhere, and they really do harm IETF's reputation by
producing stuff which is useless at best and harmful at worst.

Talk such as this is not cheap.  It harms by wasting time and
distracting
from the issues that matter.

in case you haven't noticed, this conversation isn't just about OPES.

Instead of wasting time talking a battle that
is already lost, how about fixing cs.utk.edu to answer EHLO with
STARTTLS?

it's a fallacy that you can reduce system complexity by adding more
complexity.

Ketih



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>