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

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

Ben,

Just like to make a clarification: I did not forbid the discussion of
supreme CDN because of your personality or attitude or whatever. It is
because of "Supreme CDN" as it is now is not within the core interest,
at least not yet. Therefore, please respect the working group process
and bring the discussion of supreme CDN offline.

Once you have an Internet Draft and gathered 7 supportors to demostrate
core interest, then we would welcome further discussion.

Aside, I strongly suggest reading RFC2026 on Internet Standard Process.
I recommend Tao of IETF also because it contains a lot of useful
information for newcomer to IETF (even tho you did not attend the
meeting itself).

Thank you.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "ben" <ben@cc-www.com>
To: "James Seng/Personal" <James@seng.cc>; "Bill Manning"
<bmanning@ISI.EDU>
Cc: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner@nic-naa.net>;
"Edmon" <edmon@neteka.com>; <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 4:37 AM
Subject: Re: [idn] opting out of SC/TC equivalence


> Hi James / Bill / Eric,
>
> I sincerely apologize for my young cocky attitude.
> I will submit my draft as an internet draft and hope very much to have
> all your support for my Supreme CDN system.
>
> Thanks
> Ben Chan
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>
> To: "Bill Manning" <bmanning@ISI.EDU>; "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: Thursday, August 16, 2001 2:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [idn] opting out of SC/TC equivalence
>
>
> > 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
> > >
> >
> >
>
>