Danny,
Bob can fuel this arguement this topic for years
and needs no prompting from anyone. Don't get me
wrong technically speaking he's on the ball, but
politically speaking like all technicians suck.
This arguement should be binned and not fueled.
Bob, if you got this mail then give it a rest.
The IETF does a great job and does'nt deserve or
warrent this attack. The people who deserve it
are the politicians who are trying to implement
"laws" on the use of the InterNet, have a go at
them and leave this group alone.
Have a nice now.
Regards
Mark Paton CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng
Mercury Network Systems Limited
+44 585 649051
+44 1256 761925
http://www.mnsl.org
"Mercury Network Systems - The Unstoppable Force"
This e-mail is intended only for the addressee
named above. As this e-mail may contain
confidential or privileged information if you are
not, or suspect that you are not, the named
addressee or the person responsible for delivering
the message to the named addressee, please
telephone us immediately. Please note that we
cannot guarantee that this message or any
attachment is virus free or has not been
intercepted and amended.
The views of the author may not necessarily
reflect those of the Company.
-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Iacovou
[mailto:iacovou(_at_)software(_dot_)umn(_dot_)edu]
Sent: 23 May 2000 20:13
To: Bob Allisat
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: IETF *is* computer crime.
Hello Bob,
I think you are being too harsh on the
IETF, ISOC, ICANN, ITU, and
"whatever other unsanctioned, informal
acretion of pseudo-authorities
should arise".
As an example, a group of people decided
to coordinate efforts in order
to communicate with each other. They
agreed on a format for the
correspondance, and they agreed on a
delivery protocol. Before you know
it, email is born. Such efforts are a
good thing. By agreeing with each
other on the mechanics of such a
transaction we've enabled the transaction
to occur (aside from actual implementation).
What wasn't agreed on? Well, one thing
not agreed on is what to do if
correspondance is sent 'anonymously',
containing material that may be of
interest to some authority of law, in
some country (not even connected to
the 'Net at the time email is "standardized").
And of course this is but one possible
scenerio not accounted for by
the standard describing format and
delivery of one particular type
of electronic correspondance. But the
standard never tried to address
any issues it didn't address - it is
complete in what it is. That isn't
anyone's fault, is it? technologists are
technologists, not students of
international law.
The goal of the IETF is to get us from
point A to point B. It isn't to
get us from point A to point B with no
shit (for lack of a better word)
in our way.
------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Neophytos Iacovou
University of Minnesota
Academic & Distributed Computing Services
100 Union St. SE
email: iacovou(_at_)boombox(_dot_)micro(_dot_)umn(_dot_)edu
Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
Mark. J.S Paton.vcf
Description: Vcard