Doing "real" work

"Charles E. Perkins" <charliep@iprg.nokia.com> Fri, 28 March 2003 16:26 UTC

Received: from ran.ietf.org (ran.ietf.org [10.27.6.60]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05824; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:26:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 18ywoM-000374-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:34:34 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18ywnI-00034w-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:33:28 -0500
Received: from mailhost.iprg.nokia.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05478 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:17:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from darkstar.iprg.nokia.com (darkstar.iprg.nokia.com [205.226.5.69]) by mailhost.iprg.nokia.com (8.9.3/8.9.3-GLGS) with ESMTP id IAA27159; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:20:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from root@localhost) by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com (8.11.0/8.11.0-DARKSTAR) id h2SGKCZ12765; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:20:12 -0800
X-mProtect: <200303281620> Nokia Silicon Valley Messaging Protection
Received: from UNKNOWN (205.226.2.89, claiming to be "iprg.nokia.com") by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com smtpdT2ThzF; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:20:10 PST
Message-ID: <3E84763A.C66C317@iprg.nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:20:10 -0800
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charliep@iprg.nokia.com>
Organization: Nokia Research Center
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.4-RELEASE i386)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michel Py <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
CC: The IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Doing "real" work
References: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F54D35@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello Michel,

Michel Py wrote:

> This requires teamwork and what we have today is a bunch of people
> entrenched in their positions and unwilling to compromise. If you want
> better tooling, why don't you talk to the whiners that want to have the
> cake and eat the cake?

Doesn't seem to be couched in very constructive language, really,
does it?

>                You know, the same kind of people that wrote a
> "real" operating system or designed a "real" router that managed to
> capture 0.5% of the market but of course is better than the
> implementation that captured 75% of the market.

What if the market were shaped by:
- using questionable business practices to cripple/kill competitors?
- predatory/stupid legislation?  (e.g., efforts to outlaw "French" technology)
- selective failure to enforce existing legislation?
- powerful and misleading advertising?

Does it mean that we should require new sections in every
Internet Draft explaining how the protocol can succeed
by suggesting some clever strategies for misleading
advertising and so on, or how to kill competitive protocols?
I know you didn't want to suggest this.

Maybe you didn't really mean what you said.  It amounts
to "might makes right".

Regards,
Charlie P.