> Fair enough, but my primary goal was not to justify this particular technique, > but to address the issue of whether we should be preventing the publication of > particular techniques, and under what ground rules As I see it, the issue is only one of where to have the debate - at the RFC publication level or on IETF mailing lists. > The industry and their customers have already decided against you on > this one. Industry people love to make such claims. They're just marketing BS. The Internet isn't in final form yet and I don't expect it to stabilize for at least another decade. There's still lots of time for people to correct brain damage. > I'm wondering about the future of an IETF that consistently takes itself > out of play in this way. IETF's job is to promote technical sanity, not to support unsound vendor practices. Keith
- Re: recommendation against pub... Patrik F�ltstr�m
- Re: recommendation against publication of d... Vernon Schryver
- Re: recommendation against publication... Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: recommendation against publication of d... Vernon Schryver
- RE: recommendation against publication of d... Christian Huitema
- RE: recommendation against publication... Stephen Kent
- RE: recommendation against publication of d... Ian King
- Re: recommendation against publication of d... Peter Deutsch in Mountain View
- Re: recommendation against publication... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against publica... Peter Deutsch in Mountain View
- Re: recommendation against pub... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against... Peter Deutsch in Mountain View
- Re: recommendation ag... Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: recommendatio... Martin J.G. Williams
- Re: recommendation against publica... Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: recommendation against pub... ned . freed
- Re: recommendation against... Dave Crocker
- Re: recommendation ag... ned . freed
- Re: recommendatio... Dave Crocker
- Re: recommendation ag... Patrik F�ltstr�m
- Re: recommendatio... Dick St.Peters
