ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: "IETF servers aren't for testing"

2005-08-06 12:39:27
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

Thanks for confirming that you have totally missed what the IASA process
was all about.

Thank you for confirming that the IETF has become totally mired in
beuracratic waste.


This community has a number of people who wish to say how things need to be
done - whether it is meeting location, IPv6 or cookies during the breaks -

Re: ipv6... the goal is connectivity, not the source or methodology
of such.  a workable solution is present TODAY.

Re: cookies during breaks... seems like i remember hearing you spout off
at a pleanary a few years ago that $50,000 or so was spent on cookies
because "I like cookies."  Good waste of funds that could be made
productive to suit your personal desires.  Where I am from we call that
abuse of power.

Re: meeting locations... one can only light up minneapolis so many times.

Harald, you are not the dictator of the IETF.  The community speaks for
itself, with or (hopefully) without you.  Jon Postel is laughing at you
from his grave.

while absolutely refusing to spend any thought cycles whatsoever trying to
find out how this organization is actually put together,

Hmm... IASA turns up exactly nothing of relavence on google, which in
effect makes its relavence to this discussion, or the IETF, exactly...
none.

who will have to
make the decisions to implement their wishes, and who those people are
accountable to.

You have thoroughly confirmed that you are among that group.


And you have confirmed your self serving attitute.  Go have yourself
another mocha frappe crappe latte with extra cookies and indulge in a few
more personal attacks on those of us actually trying to make progress
before the sun goes supernova.  You can't win on the technical argument so
you choose a completely irrelavent personal attack.  Love your hair, hope
you win, NEXT!

Scott

                        Harald

--On lørdag, august 06, 2005 13:17:47 -0400 shogunx
<shogunx(_at_)sleekfreak(_dot_)ath(_dot_)cx> wrote:

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

Once the IETF web services are operated under a contract with the IASA,
and that contract contains text like "these servers must be reachable via
IPv4", I think it is a very reasonable idea for the IETF Administrative
Director to ask the company providing this service under contract what
they would charge extra in order to change that line in their contract
to "IPv4 and IPv6".

At the moment, remember, the IETF's webservers are provided by a company
that is under no formal obligation to do anything requested by the IETF
community;

That is a fundamental imbalance in the order of things.

they have chosen for reasons that seem good to them to continue
not offering IPv6 access to the IETF servers, presumably because they
think that some of the other things we have asked them to do take
priority.

I think IPv6 can wait until we have the formalities straight.

With all due respect, thats bu%^sh$t.  The IETF needs no outside provider
to provided the desired level of connectivity.  I have had redundant /48's
routed to my internal networks for almost 2 years, both 6bone addressing
and production addresses, and my upstream bandwidth providers haven't even
heard of v6.  Thurn on the tunnel and get it over with, sans the
beauracracy that is crippling this organization.


                       Harald




_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf







sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf