On 1/22/06, nick(_dot_)staff(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net
<nick(_dot_)staff(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> wrote:
Please, if you don't have
an opinion specifically related to Jefsey then stay out of the Jefsey
discussion.
On 1/22/06, Scott W Brim <sbrim(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 01/22/2006 22:27 PM, John Loughney allegedly wrote:
Look at various peer-to-peer protocols as a good
examples of things that people use everyday, but wouldn't stand a
chance of getting an RFC.
Why not?
Peer-to-peer protocols are a great example. The IETF is a miserable
place to work on them because the organization tolerates all
pseudo-technical discussion, and thus fails to hold the attention of
implementers, despite the fact that the process is designed to route
around that exact problem.
I suspect the IESG will find that the folks actually trying to get
work done in the presence of JFC's emails all feel the same way. Most
of the objections seem to be coming from people concerned with
designing the perfect bureaucratic process. In any WG, there are
implementers whose support is valuable. The rest of the participants
are valuable when they fix bugs. JFC doesn't seem to fix many bugs,
and drives implementers away in droves, from what I can see.
It has been suggested that I be placed under RFC 3683 sanctions in the
past, though I suppose the offending messages have always been in
response to misconduct (not a justification). I don't think the IETF
is in any danger of developing a trigger finger here.
--
Robert Sayre
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf