Roger Jørgensen wrote:
On 8/24/07, michael.dillon@xxxxxx <michael.dillon@xxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
No reason to attack him like you did and I specifically want to address
this because mailing lists have a much larger audience than their
participants. If such attacks are not answered it creates barriers for
new blood to enter into the IETF process. Please don't do this.
A wild guess from my side, I think quite some fresh blood are scared
of by the path they have to follow to get through with their ideas or
thoughts.
Not so much the way their questions are answered but it certainly
don´t help to be bitched at either:)
IMO, there is almost no point days of trying to engineer a protocol in the
IETF that doesn't have some real world grounding ahead of time. At the
very least, it shows that somebody(s) have made more of a commitment
than just getting another RFC number on their resume. This also neatly
routes around the damage of being shouted down while an idea is in its
infancy, and spares the ridicule if it really was a bond-headed idea since
you can abandon it instead of taking it to IETF. No such escape valve exists
for ungrounded/untested protocols, unfortunately.
I wonder what percentage of RFC's are stillborn these days.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf