-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Harald == Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harald In the discussions leading up to this document, we actually had 3
Harald different other levels of inclusivity up for consideration:
okay, I very much like these descriptions.
The number of application protocols with the oomph to break the
Internet is quite small
however, it's not safe to assume that it's zero. any new killer app that were
poorly designed could do it.
also, you might be underestimating the damage done by HTTP (1.0 or later).
The number of application protocols with the oomph to break the
Internet is quite small
OK, I've gotta ask - how many times do we break the Internet before we
reverse this reasoning? (How many times is too many?)
(signed) curious
From: Eric Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Sheesh!--next you'll be telling us that you never heard the phrase
out of scope before last week.
Sure I have. There's hardly a piece of work done by the IETF that someone
hasn't claimed to be out of scope. It's just that the phrase is not
Scoping is certainly used successfully as an argument at the WG level,
through the more common pronnouncement that would require a change
to the charter.. Scoping aids WGs in being able to move the ball
forward in the direction of predfined goals, and hence is a process aid.
This is
The example I'm thinking about involved predecessors to OpenGL.
As this example doesn't even involve communication over a network, I would
agree that it is out of scope. ...
[OpenGL example]
It's not that other examples such as X couldn't have used more network knowledge to
avoid problems
The gist of this comment is that someone developing a network
application protocol ought to somehow get a blessing from the IETF.
Reality check. Who got the IETF approval to deploy ICQ, Kazaa, or for
that matter HTTP?
The fact that someone did something without the IETF's approval does
According to you, this has nothing to do with the IETF. It might
result
in the congestive collapse of the Internet, but who cares, the IETF
doesn't do street lights. I would like to see the criteria
which
determine that telephones belong on the Internet but street lights
--On 16. oktober 2003 13:15 -0400 Eric Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- For the Internet - only the stuff that is directly involved in
making the Internet work is included in the IETF's scope.
In other words, routing, DNS, and Internet operations/management.
Adopting this as the IETF's
Christian,
we might be looking through opposite ends of this tunnel.
--On 16. oktober 2003 15:15 -0700 Christian Huitema
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this point is one of the critical causes of conflict when
talking
about the IETF mission - and unless we lance the boil, actually talk
That is wrong or at least a gross overstatement.
If that's what you think, I invite you to make a list of all the
IETF-standardized protocols and explain how they are all (or even more than
50% of them) needed to make the Internet work.
There have been many things that the IETF
From: Eric Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That is wrong or at least a gross overstatement.
If that's what you think, I invite you to make a list of all the
IETF-standardized protocols and explain how they are all (or even more than
50% of them) needed to make the Internet work.
% --On 15. oktober 2003 12:57 -0400 Eric Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
%
% Well, let's test this assertion. Suppose a consortium of electric
% companies develops a UDP-based protocol for monitoring and controlling
% street lights. It turns out that this protocol generates an unbounded
%
- For the Internet - only the stuff that is directly involved in making
the Internet work is included in the IETF's scope.
In other words, routing, DNS, and Internet operations/management. Adopting
this as the IETF's mission would be a very radical change indeed! While
this particular
14 matches
Mail list logo
