When one sticks to some simple protocols, a basic end-to-end architecture,
and avoids becoming involved in all of the services (and protocols) attached
to the clouds in that architecture, then one can avoid a large percentage of
what the IETF seems to thrive on.
Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike O'Dell" <mo(_at_)ccr(_dot_)org>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 8:41 AM
Subject: OPES continuing froth....
Well now. After weeks on the rolling boil, the advocates for
this effort have confirmed and reinforced my initial opinion:
OPES is deeply evil and the IETF should stay far,
far away from this hideous abomination
there is no way this can be anything other than genetically stupid
and for the IETF to endorse this effort by granting a working group
amounts to aiding and abetting gross negligence bordering on
criminal malfeasance.
the world in general is getting more than a little tired of
"It's not *our* fault, we just defined the protocol;
other people made the mistake of using it."
the legal concept of "attractive nuisance" comes to mind
what about an automobile manufacturer who build something
with this level of quality and "fitness for purpose" and
then sold it to an unsuspecting public? of course they'd
get sued out the wazoo, and rightly so.
It's about time for the IETF to shoulder the moral responsibility
for foisting unalloyed CRAP on the world and say NO to things
like this.
There. I feel much better now, for all the good it does.
-mo
"The Great Oz has spoken!"
