When one sticks to some simple protocols, a basic end-to-end architecture,
and avoids becoming involved in all of the services (and protocols) attached
to the clouds in that architecture, then one can avoid a large percentage of
what the IETF seems to thrive on.
Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike O'Dell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 8:41 AM
Subject: OPES continuing froth....
>
> Well now. After weeks on the rolling boil, the advocates for
> this effort have confirmed and reinforced my initial opinion:
>
> OPES is deeply evil and the IETF should stay far,
> far away from this hideous abomination
>
> there is no way this can be anything other than genetically stupid
> and for the IETF to endorse this effort by granting a working group
> amounts to aiding and abetting gross negligence bordering on
> criminal malfeasance.
>
> the world in general is getting more than a little tired of
>
> "It's not *our* fault, we just defined the protocol;
> other people made the mistake of using it."
>
> the legal concept of "attractive nuisance" comes to mind
>
> what about an automobile manufacturer who build something
> with this level of quality and "fitness for purpose" and
> then sold it to an unsuspecting public? of course they'd
> get sued out the wazoo, and rightly so.
>
> It's about time for the IETF to shoulder the moral responsibility
> for foisting unalloyed CRAP on the world and say NO to things
> like this.
>
> There. I feel much better now, for all the good it does.
>
> -mo
>
> "The Great Oz has spoken!"
>
