ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: quick comments over Harald's use of RFC 3683

2005-09-30 11:47:25
I believe I made quite a similar set of points off list to JFC soon after
Harald proposed his 3683. I definitely agree that it appears there is a
fundamental divergence between the mindset and protocols of this
orgnaization and his ways. I guess it boild down to "should we stop trying
to pound this square peg into that round hole? This doesn't appear to be
working!"

-Tom 

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On 
Behalf Of Ole Jacobsen
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 7:47 AM
To: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; iesg(_at_)iesg(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: quick comments over Harald's use of RFC 3683


JFC,

Since I have engaged in debate with you on another list, 
maybe I can offer some constructive criticism to perhaps make 
you understand why people react the way they do, up to and 
including this proposed action.
I have cc'd the IETF and IESG since I others may agree or 
disagree with me and offer feedback to you privately or publically.

1. Your postings are Long, Rambling and Frequent (LRF). I 
have a certain sympathy for people whose native language is 
not English (like myself) when they post on these lists. 
However, this usually results in fewer, not more words, a la 
"We meet lunch 11 cafe?" In your case--and unlike in the 
digital picture case--more words/pixels does not contribute 
to the clarity of the image, quite the opposite in fact. 
Rambling refers to your tendency to make references to 
everything under the sun while discussing a given topic. 
Frequent just adds to the irritation. It's not like anyone on 
this list gets too little mail.

2. Your posting appears to come from a position where the 
IETF "members"
collectively are just clueless, have not seen the light or 
found their way to your particular techno-religion. Some call 
this preaching, and in this case the choir is not appreciative.

3. Some of your postings can be read as personal attacks. 
While some may call this your "debating style," there are 
clearly instances when you cross the line.  This really isn't 
a good way to make friends with a large group of people.

4. Some of your arguments appear to be technical in nature, 
but are incomprehensible even to our most respected experts. 
It is of course POSSIBLE that they are wrong and you are 
right, but if you are unable to explain your position even to 
them after many rounds, does it not seem like you are wasting 
your, their and our time?

Thanks for listening.

Ole


Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal Academic 
Research and Technology Initiatives, Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: ole(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj



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

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>