Christian Huitema wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Just for the record -- Microsoft as a corporation did not try to sway this issue one
>way or the other; individual IETF contributors who happen to work for Microsoft have
>various opinions in this debate. OTOH, we are shipping software, and we would really
>want the debate to be resolved very soon.
>
> -- Christian Huitema
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul A Vixie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> > I see a big difference between deprecating/moving to historic and changing
> > status to experimental. Experemental implies further development.
>
> I don't see that difference here. Just as "let's let the market decide"
> really just means "let's do whatever Microsoft wants", so it is that "let's
I think what Paul meant was an invocation of the Golden Rule of Arts and
Sciences ("He who has the gold, makes the rules" for those not versed in
the classics). There's probably no need to wave loaded disclaimers
around where they might go off, and injure a bystander :)
Microsoft's name (rightly or wrongly) is commonly substituted by those
in the halls of Information Technology for any amoral, monopolising
concern or manufacturer of low-quality merchandise. It is not at all
unusual (in my personal experience) to hear a shoddy telecommunications
provider, or a Harmful Products Manufacturer(tm) referred to as 'A
Microsoft' or 'A Microsoft Subsidiary'. Oh, well. I guess any publicity
is good publicity...Or at least that's what I've heard Marketing say. :)
D
