nanog mailing list archives
Re: Stability of the Internet?
From: bmanning () vacation karoshi com
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:57:40 +0000 (UCT)
business and in into the PSO business it is now chartered for.True. And it should also get out of the operations biz, but that is another kettle of fish.The problem there is that there is no place for operations discussions, AFAICT. This may be an oversight on part of the ICANN conceptual framework. Most of the rest of us assumed (yeah, I know) that the IETF would handle that. Agreed, this may be in error. But, it is an error without a solution.
Protocols are not Operations. Operations fourms exist independent of IETF. (see the various *NOG's, EOF-LIST, APOP, et.al.) Protocol developers & Policy makers should listen to Operators. To subsume operations in the IETF is just as bad as subsuming policy in the IETF. --bill
Current thread:
- Re: Stability of the Internet?, (continued)
- Re: Stability of the Internet? William Allen Simpson (May 18)
- RE: Stability of the Internet? Roeland Meyer (May 18)
- RE: Stability of the Internet? Roeland Meyer (May 18)
- RE: Stability of the Internet? Roeland Meyer (May 21)
- Re: Stability of the Internet? bmanning (May 21)
- RE: Stability of the Internet? Roeland Meyer (May 23)
- Re: Stability of the Internet? bmanning (May 23)
- RE: Stability of the Internet? Roeland Meyer (May 23)
- Re: Stability of the Internet? bmanning (May 23)
- RE: Stability of the Internet? Roeland Meyer (May 23)
- Re: Stability of the Internet? bmanning (May 23)