At Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:07:10 -0800, David Kessens wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 07:30:31AM -0800, ext Eric Rescorla wrote: > > At Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:39:32 -0800, David Kessens wrote: > > > Basically, anybody who cannot survive without 60 minutes of network > > > connectivity during an IETF and who has not taken measures to provide > > > for backup connectivity during *any* outage cannot be taken serious. > > > > Of course one can survive 60 minutes of network outage. I could > > also survive a broken finger, but I'm still carefeful when I > > use a hammer. Just because people could survive an outage is > > no reason to inflict one on ourselves. > > This issue will only develop into an outage if you bring the wrong > survival tools: I suggest you leave your hammer home and make sure > that you can use ipv6 only. There is no rocket science here. People > have done this before. Absolutely they have, but I don't see why we should be put into a situation where I need to have "survival tools". Again, what is the value of this experiment? Since I seem to be into analogies this morning, let me try another one. When we were in YVR, there were water turbidity issues and people were told not to drink the water out of the tap. The hotel supplied bottled water. If we were to hear tomorrow that due to the renovations the hotel water was to be unpotable, would your answer be that they should fix that or that each IETFer should bring a survival tool in the form of a water filter? -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf