Hi James / Bill / Eric,
I sincerely apologize for my young cocky attitude.
I will submit my draft as an internet draft and hope very much to have
all your support for my Supreme CDN system.
Thanks
Ben Chan
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Seng/Personal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Bill Manning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "ben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Edmon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: [idn] opting out of SC/TC equivalence
> Once again, wearing my co-chair hat, I need to cut this discussion
on
> "Supreme CDN". There is no Internet Draft, and neither is it in the
core
> interest. Hence, lets not waste working group bandwidth on this
further.
>
> Further discussion on Supreme CDN should be bring offline. Thanks.
>
> Ben, it would also be worthwhile to look at "The Tao of IETF"
> (http://www.ietf.org/tao.html) to get a understanding of how IETF
> function. You should also read up RFC2026 on process.
>
> -James Seng
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Manning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "ben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> "Edmon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 2:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [idn] opting out of SC/TC equivalence
>
>
> > %
> > % Hi Eric,
> > %
> > % > > I could care less about other registries and what they do.
> > % >
> > % > Then there is no IETF issue for you.
> > % >
> > %
> > % My IETF issue is to get support for my "supreme CDN system" to
be
> > % implemented as a standard. Do I have your support?
> >
> > While I'll leave Eric to answer that question for himself,
> > I am left cold by your attitude regarding IETF participation
> > and consenses building. Until you are willing to learn from
> > others and have responsible dialog, it is my opinion that
> > you will not gain support for your flawed ideas.
> > But, since you don't care about other registries, interoperability
> > is not an issue... ergo, its not an IETF issue, your SCS is a
closed,
> > propriatary solution. It will never be a standard.
> >
> > % > ...
> > % > > then I will modify my draft.
> > % >
> > % > What draft?
> > %
> > % I said "draft", I did not say "Internet draft".
> >
> > Again, what draft. Neither Eric or I mentioned "Internet Draft".
> > Further evidence that your idea is closed and propriatary.
Perhaps.
> >
> > % Thanks
> > % Ben Chan
> >
> >
> > --
> > --bill
> >
>
>
