|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM
Philip J. Nesser II wrote: > > Vince Wolodkin supposedly said: > > > > Paul A Vixie wrote: > > > > > > > P.S. Keep in mind that a Root Name Server Confederation is > > > > a collection of Root Name Servers. The new ISI/NSI confederation > > > > that is being built just moved one of its nameservers to the > > > > control of RIPE and it is located in London, England. > > > > > > fiction. > > > > > > there are some root name servers. > > > > > > then there are some pirates who are trying to coin the "confederation" term. > > > > Mr Vixie, > > > > I realize your exasperation with certain elements that have arisen in > > this "new age" of the internet. Many of them ARE in it for the money. > > Of course, you realize, that this was bound to happen. Any successful > > non-profit venture will ultimately have people trying to make money off > > of it. It's not illegal, though piracy is. > > > > While you disagree with the "confederation" ideas that Mr. Fleming > > espouses, calling he and others pirates is rather ridiculous. If you > > were involved in an IETF proceeding and someone presented an alternate > > idea, would you call them pirates? > > > > Paul can certainly speak for himself, but I think the issue that most > people (myself included) have is that these people refuse to work within > the IETF process. If they want to change things and follow the procedure > that everyone else has used for years then great, let them try and convince > people of the validity of their ideas. > > If, on the other hand, they refuse to work within the well established > system and go off into a corner and make grand declarations and try and > fracture the "rough consensus" model that has kept the net operating for > years, then they are indeed pirates. I would like to point out that going > through the IETF process does not mean your ideas will be accepted. More > ideas and plans are rejected than are accepted. > The problem here being that there was NO parallel track to the IETF for policy issues prior to RFC2026. Also, most of these people saw work on draft-postel et al go to waste as it was "pulled" from the RFC track and basically made co-opted by the ISOC. They could have chosen to go the RFC2026 BCP method, instead they went their own way, ignoring Best Current Practice. > > It's time you faced it, though you and others may have put a great deal > > of work into building what the internet has become, so have many > > others. It doesn't mean that it belongs to you. It doesn't mean that > > people who are trying to build something now are pirates. > > > > The grandstanders have chosen to work outside of the IETF process and are > trying to build something. There are a couple of reasons why they could > want to do it that way: > As I noted, the IAHC is working outside of the IETF process also. > 1. They are impatient and don't want to work through established channels. Read this as they don't trust existing channels because they have seen the process pulled from existing channels previously. > 2. They don't believe working through the established channels is > legitimate. Existing channels are legitimate as long as they are used. > 3. They have tried and their ideas were rejected. > Well, their ideas weren't rejected through an IETF process. The IAHC documents are being created OUTSIDE the RFC process, outside of Best Current Practices. > If 1. then they need to learn some patients and cooperation. Always a good idea for everyone. > If 2. then we disagree and will not agree for the forseeable future. As I said, existing channels are legitimate, they just aren't being used ALL of the time. > If 3. then either: > a) they were right and everyone else was wrong and in a few months or > years it will be clear. > b) they have some other motive, whether it be greed or glory or power or > something else I don't know. > > If a) then we will have to see. > If b) which is what I suspect, then I don't repect the motives and once > again I doubt we will agree anytime in the future. > I agree with you, I just don't feel it is fair to characterize people as pirates who are attempting to build a viable(??) alternative to the present system. Perhaps they should approach this through the "Experimental" RFC process, would that be the proper approach? > > I really can't tell why you are so upset about all of this. I am > > guessing that you don't want to see the internet fall to ruins because a > > bunch of newcomers with "radical" ideas want to change things. You may > > even be a little bit afraid that some of them might succeed. But why is > > their input LESS valuable than yours, and who are you to make this > > judgement? > > > > All people who come to the IETF, come as individuals and their opinions > start out counting the same. As with all things, your actions and words > over the years tend to add or subtract to the value people place on them. > People tend to respect people who have made positive contributions or have > strong technical arguements, and ignore people who make no contributions or > whose ideas lack technical merit. > > > I'll probably get flamed off the planet for siding with the > > "interlopers", perhaps cries of "burn the witch" will follow me. Then > > again, wasn't there a time when those who thought that the earth orbited > > the sun killed for their blasphemy? > > > > A completely pointless statement to your arguement. It is easy to label > yourself the martyr and how everyone else is wrong, but it doesn't win any > points. > > > Take a good look in the mirror and decide, do you want to work with > > others or do you want to dictate to others? Then please let us know, we > > may need to ignore you in the future. > > > > Paul and everyone else who does work in the IETF work constantly with > others to keep the Internet functioning. If you expect to work with people > then you need to step up and join the effort. The feeling I get is that > since you don't like the structure of the team you want to run off and form > your own team and call the other people antisocial for not abandoning the > current process and embracing yours. > You have mistaken me for someone else. You assume that since I defend their right to attempt to build competing systems that I am one of "them". I am not advocating that anyone dump or embrace anything, merely that keeping an open mind is a good idea. > If you want to effect change then step up and try to do it legitimately > instead of trying to do it with press releases. Even Microsoft tried to > bully the IETF process and had tough times because of it. Now they send > numerous people to the IETF and contribute to the effort. > Once again, I think you have mistaken me with someone else. Besides, press releases ARE a valid method of shaping public opinion and getting users to test your system. Perhaps if draft-postel had never been pulled out of legitimate channels none of this would have happened. > > Vince Wolodkin > > > > ---> Phil Vince - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|