Hi Valdis -- Thanks for the support. I wish it could be sent to the IETF list for contrast with all the foolishness. But it is your choice;-)... Thanks for your support;-)...\Stef At 11:02 AM -0400 8/7/02, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >On Tue, 06 Aug 2002 16:55:59 PDT, Einar Stefferud <Stef@thor.nma.com> said: > > > My bottom line logic is that finding a way to resolve differences > > through constructive resolution processes is what we need, vice > > lobbing written grenades over walls, and building fortresses to close > > out communications. > > > > But, I fear this is off topic because it is not technical enough;-)... > >No Stef, you're quite right here - we *do* need to remember the following: > >1) Technical solutions for social problems almost never work. > >2) We aren't designing technology for technology's sake, we are designing >technology to be deployed and used. As such, we *will* end up with the >occasional design wart - we've had protocols done in weird ways because >some player had a patent on an algorithm. I was going to add "and if >the US Govt said every third bit had to be painted green", and then I >remembered that we produced RFC1508 on GSSAPI - an interesting tap dance >around the "crypto in the hole" problem of the time. > >There exist players big enough that they can mandate "there will exist >something like ICANN" and make it stick. We're also stuck with the >technical considerations in RFC2826. Any proposed solution will have >to deal with *both* those sets of issues. >-- > Valdis Kletnieks > Computer Systems Senior Engineer > Virginia Tech > > >Content-Type: application/pgp-signature > >Attachment converted: Viking5:Untitled (????/----) (000072F0)