Hi all, Without entering in the discussion of anyone being right or wrong, I will like to ask that this thread, which I don't think will bring us to anything good, is discontinued unless we are going to talk about the real initial subject. A discussion about IPv6 being experimental or not, could be productive in my opinion, but if we follow the appropriate behavior in the list. So far, if is a test or not using it at the IETF servers is a good example, but actually I think is clear that this will only happen once the contract with the organization holding the secretariat is fixed, as Brian suggested in the plenary. I'm sure the IAD will take in consideration our inputs on this for the new contract. Regards, Jordi, acting as "sergeant at arms" > De: shogunx <shogunx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Responder a: <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> > Fecha: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 14:57:54 -0400 (EDT) > Para: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > CC: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@xxxxxxxxx>, IETF General Discussion Mailing > List <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Asunto: Re: "IETF servers aren't for testing" > > On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > >> Thanks for confirming that you have totally missed what the IASA process >> was all about. > > Thank you for confirming that the IETF has become totally mired in > beuracratic waste. > >> >> This community has a number of people who wish to say how things need to be >> done - whether it is meeting location, IPv6 or cookies during the breaks - > > Re: ipv6... the goal is connectivity, not the source or methodology > of such. a workable solution is present TODAY. > > Re: cookies during breaks... seems like i remember hearing you spout off > at a pleanary a few years ago that $50,000 or so was spent on cookies > because "I like cookies." Good waste of funds that could be made > productive to suit your personal desires. Where I am from we call that > abuse of power. > > Re: meeting locations... one can only light up minneapolis so many times. > > Harald, you are not the dictator of the IETF. The community speaks for > itself, with or (hopefully) without you. Jon Postel is laughing at you > from his grave. > >> while absolutely refusing to spend any thought cycles whatsoever trying to >> find out how this organization is actually put together, > > Hmm... IASA turns up exactly nothing of relavence on google, which in > effect makes its relavence to this discussion, or the IETF, exactly... > none. > >> who will have to >> make the decisions to implement their wishes, and who those people are >> accountable to. >> >> You have thoroughly confirmed that you are among that group. >> > > And you have confirmed your self serving attitute. Go have yourself > another mocha frappe crappe latte with extra cookies and indulge in a few > more personal attacks on those of us actually trying to make progress > before the sun goes supernova. You can't win on the technical argument so > you choose a completely irrelavent personal attack. Love your hair, hope > you win, NEXT! > > Scott > >> Harald >> >> --On lørdag, august 06, 2005 13:17:47 -0400 shogunx >> <shogunx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: >>> >>>> Once the IETF web services are operated under a contract with the IASA, >>>> and that contract contains text like "these servers must be reachable via >>>> IPv4", I think it is a very reasonable idea for the IETF Administrative >>>> Director to ask the company providing this service under contract what >>>> they would charge extra in order to change that line in their contract >>>> to "IPv4 and IPv6". >>>> >>>> At the moment, remember, the IETF's webservers are provided by a company >>>> that is under no formal obligation to do anything requested by the IETF >>>> community; >>> >>> That is a fundamental imbalance in the order of things. >>> >>>> they have chosen for reasons that seem good to them to continue >>>> not offering IPv6 access to the IETF servers, presumably because they >>>> think that some of the other things we have asked them to do take >>>> priority. >>>> >>>> I think IPv6 can wait until we have the formalities straight. >>> >>> With all due respect, thats bu%^sh$t. The IETF needs no outside provider >>> to provided the desired level of connectivity. I have had redundant /48's >>> routed to my internal networks for almost 2 years, both 6bone addressing >>> and production addresses, and my upstream bandwidth providers haven't even >>> heard of v6. Thurn on the tunnel and get it over with, sans the >>> beauracracy that is crippling this organization. >>> >>>> >>>> Harald >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ietf mailing list >>>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >>>> >>> >>> sleekfreak pirate broadcast >>> http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ietf mailing list >>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > sleekfreak pirate broadcast > http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf