Fred and all,
Fred, you are way over dramatizing here. Although you over dramatization
is a amusing, it is neither appropriate or useful for purposes of
discussion on this subject area. I also observe as you
are a representative of a hardware vendor of some note,
that you have obvious reasons for your position here.
That said, I shall digress.....
There are many areas of the US that have very limited hardware capability
that may exclude them in some ways with respect to this question/concern
and are very limited on $$ resources to enable them to upgrade to
more current technology. I am thinking of the Ohio Valley area in particular
here. Asd I have spent a good deal of time and $$ in assisting communities
in some of these areas (Particular the Ohio Valley area), I am speaking
first hand. Yet, these communities have need and desire to participate.
To use a standard to exclude them or limit their ability to participate
in purposeful manner is morally wrong when it is not necessary, which
I believe is the case here.
Fred Baker wrote:
> At 03:36 PM 3/30/99 -0600, Tim Salo wrote:
> >So, do I understand the argument correctly as:
> >
> > The IETF, when choosing a standard for RFCs, should take
> > into consideration that there are Internet protocol research
> > groups in underdeveloped countries that are using VT100s
> > connected to the outside world only via e-mail?
> >
> >Did I miss anything?
>
> I think you state it well.
>
> I have a hard time with worrying about people who only have access to
> 30-year-obsolete equipment. If they are vendors in any sense, they use
> equipment that people will buy products for, and people aren't buying new
> products for VT-100s. If they are schools in any sense, excuse me, but I
> have been to some of those schools, and the ones I've been to are running
> on PCs. They might be 386 or 486-based, but they use standard web browsers
> and other standard applications. I regularly review research agendas for
> schools in developing countries (usually in the form of "does a certain
> random vendor want to spend time and money supporting this effort"), and
> their networks are heavy on deep-sea fiber and expensive high end equipment.
>
> I do believe that there are folks in under-developed countries whose only
> access is through email - there are people like that in the US (Juno), and
> I have corresponded recently with folks whose only access was via UUCP. I
> am indeed concerned about certain parts of Africa and South America, where
> there is little infrastructure, and the concept of having a telephone in
> every village is viewed as a rich man's pipe dream. But I don't think
> pigmys that subsist by hunting elephant are worried about the bit structure
> of an IP header, or how to write a MIB for a spear.
>
> spearTipAttrib OBJECT-TYPE
> SYNTAX INTEGER { barbed (1),
> poisoned (2),
> barbedAndPoisoned (3),
> other (4)
> }
> STATUS current -- DC
> DESCRIPTION
> "this variable describes the reason we believe
> the bit of food the spear is embedded in will
> stop wiggling sometime soon."
>
> I frankly think that we are writing specifications for people who are
> likely to read them. I'll set the bar as low as I can reasonably do, but
> there is a point below which I scratch my head and wonder why. So if I can
> structure things in a reasonable format and provide a way that those with
> limited access can readily obtain them, that seems reasonable. Requiring
> that all documents be written in cuneiform, and pictures scratched in the
> sand with the left big toe, seems a bit of a leap.
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
