On 1/22/06, nick.staff@xxxxxxxxxxx <nick.staff@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Please, if you don't have > an opinion specifically related to Jefsey then stay out of the Jefsey > discussion. On 1/22/06, Scott W Brim <sbrim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/22/2006 22:27 PM, John Loughney allegedly wrote: > > Look at various peer-to-peer protocols as a good > > examples of things that people use everyday, but wouldn't stand a > > chance of getting an RFC. > > Why not? Peer-to-peer protocols are a great example. The IETF is a miserable place to work on them because the organization tolerates all pseudo-technical discussion, and thus fails to hold the attention of implementers, despite the fact that the process is designed to route around that exact problem. I suspect the IESG will find that the folks actually trying to get work done in the presence of JFC's emails all feel the same way. Most of the objections seem to be coming from people concerned with designing the perfect bureaucratic process. In any WG, there are implementers whose support is valuable. The rest of the participants are valuable when they fix bugs. JFC doesn't seem to fix many bugs, and drives implementers away in droves, from what I can see. It has been suggested that I be placed under RFC 3683 sanctions in the past, though I suppose the offending messages have always been in response to misconduct (not a justification). I don't think the IETF is in any danger of developing a trigger finger here. -- Robert Sayre "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time." _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf