I apologize for this and my previous messages. I didn't realize I was
talking to members of the IPv8 Brigade.
From: "Brijesh Kumar" <bkumar(_at_)ennovatenetworks(_dot_)com>
...
Mohsen may be accused of any thing, but calling Mohsen whose aim is to
create an open alternative to WAP is hilarious. And, Mohsen at least
understands the issues involved in wireless cellular communication,
something that can be said of many other TCP/IP for every thing
advocates.
There's plenty of hilarity to go around in any discussion where people
are
- insisting that a protocol is patent free without bothering to do a
patent search for all of the ideas used in the protocol. Never mind
the mysterious ways that patents can appear, or the enormous joke in
the notion of being able to predict what the patent system might
consider a patentable idea.
- claiming that Mohsen BANAN's protocols are more open than those of
WAP despite their editorial history.
- persistently, unbendingly claiming that 14000 bit/sec is a bit rate
that is radically lower than anything ever before used for TCP/IP.
- claiming that the current and prospective webphone screens and
keybaords could be useful for anything that might need even 140 bit/sec.
Anyone who has tried to use those silly screens, keyboards, and thumb
wheels merely to configure a phone or use a built-in directory (and
isn't a telephant salescritter) must laugh at that the image of surfing
the web, getting directions, buying anything other than air time, or
doing anything you couldn't do just as well with an analog cell phone
everywhere on earth that WAP will be available.
- claiming that the IETF or any other standards committee could,
even if it wanted, prevent or slow the adoption of genuinely better
protocols.
- demanding that "access" to the IETF publishing process be openned.
Everyone who advocates keeping the RFC press open to any except official
products of working groups should read Mohsen BANAN's RFC's and
draft-terrell-logic-analy-bin-ip-spec-ipv7-ipv8-08.txt
It's not enough to talk about keeping the IETF open. You must look at
the concrete consequences of the current implementation of openness.
A press that tries to publish absolutely everything soon becomes a vanity
press that publishes nothing read by anyone except its author. Editing
is not only about suggesting fixes for spelling errors. An editor that
rarely rejects a manuscript isn't. An open standards organization without
real technical editing, including a lot of rejections with prejudice, is
in the end not open to anything except lunatic adovcacy.
We all, including the IPv8 Brigade, would be better served if the IETF
left electronic vanity publishing to the world wide web, and only
published official products of working groups of "legacy programmers."
If no working group will adopt a draft or even form to adopt a draft, then
the idea is bad or the IETF is dead, and in either case, the IETF should
not publish it.
As someone says, openness to good ideas does not involve opening your
skull and letting your brain fall out.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com