-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Jeff,
The RFC Editor function is the subject of a contract, paid for and
issued by the Internet Society on behalf of the IETF. The IAB, which
I chaired until 2 weeks ago, by its latest charter "must approve
--On Friday, April 14, 2000 14:41 +0200 "Shaw, Robert"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
O.K., help me understand this. ISOC paid ISI a few hundred
thousand dollars (?) for the RFC-Editor functions (wasn't it
really funding for the entire IANA role?).
No. It is important to understand that the
A grace note on John's reply:
It is *precisely* because of the complexity of the organizational relationships
that we now have a contract and an MoU defining our relations with the
RFC Editor and the IANA respectively. As long as the contract and the MoU
are respected, it is no concern of ours
At 04:46 PM 4/14/00 +, Bob Braden wrote:
There IS no dark conspiracy here, just people devoting CONSIDERABLE
time and energy (without stock options, I might add) to making the
internet work.
A great idea! Stock options in the RFC Editor function!
- A hot startup of about 25 years (in real
Title: RE: recommendation against publication of draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt
Keith Moore wrote:
. . .
3. Aside from the technical implications of intercepting traffic,
redirecting it to unintended destinations, or forging traffic from
someone else's IP address - there are also
Keith Moore wrote:
perhaps architectural impurity alone shouldn't keep you from doing
something, but the fact that something violates fundamental design
assumptions should cause you to do some analysis and hard thinking
about the likely consequences of using them. and if you are in the
Greg Skinner wrote:
My general (cynical) opinion of NAT and other proxy technology is that
the marketplace spoke louder than the voices of the architectural
purists. (No offense intended.) However, given recent changes in the
economic climate, perhaps things will head in the opposite
