Re: [idn] opting out of SC/TC equivalence

["James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>]

Once again, wearing my co-chair hat, I need to cut this discussion on
"Supreme CDN". There is no Internet Draft, and neither is it in the core
interest. Hence, lets not waste working group bandwidth on this further.

Further discussion on Supreme CDN should be bring offline. Thanks.

Ben, it would also be worthwhile to look at "The Tao of IETF"
(http://www.ietf.org/tao.html) to get a understanding of how IETF
function. You should also read up RFC2026 on process.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Manning" <bmanning@ISI.EDU>
To: "ben" <ben@cc-www.com>
Cc: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner@nic-naa.net>;
"Edmon" <edmon@neteka.com>; <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 2:23 AM
Subject: Re: [idn] opting out of SC/TC equivalence


> %
> % Hi Eric,
> %
> % > > I could care less about other registries and what they do.
> % >
> % > Then there is no IETF issue for you.
> % >
> %
> % My IETF issue is to get support for my "supreme CDN system" to be
> % implemented as a standard.  Do I have your support?
>
> While I'll leave Eric to answer that question for himself,
> I am left cold by your attitude regarding IETF participation
> and consenses building. Until you are willing to learn from
> others and have responsible dialog, it is my opinion that
> you will not gain support for your flawed ideas.
> But, since you don't care about other registries, interoperability
> is not an issue... ergo, its not an IETF issue, your SCS is a closed,
> propriatary solution.  It will never be a standard.
>
> % > ...
> % > > then I will modify my draft.
> % >
> % > What draft?
> %
> % I said "draft", I did not say "Internet draft".
>
> Again, what draft. Neither Eric or I mentioned "Internet Draft".
> Further evidence that your idea is closed and propriatary. Perhaps.
>
> % Thanks
> % Ben Chan
>
>
> --
> --bill
>