IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here

Scott W Brim <sbrim@cisco.com> Tue, 21 September 2004 12:40 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA09681; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:40:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9k3I-0001zQ-So; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:47:25 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9juX-0001Gx-0F; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:38:21 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9jqd-0000Ne-Rw for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:34:19 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA09204 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:34:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9jx0-0001rO-OA for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:40:55 -0400
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (171.68.223.138) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Sep 2004 05:33:58 -0700
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from cisco.com (sjc-vpn5-198.cisco.com [10.21.88.198]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with SMTP id i8LCXjYN012516 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 05:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by cisco.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:33:43 -0400
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:33:43 -0400
From: Scott W Brim <sbrim@cisco.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20040921123342.GH2712@sbrim-w2k01>
Mail-Followup-To: Scott W Brim <sbrim@cisco.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <414EDAA2.9080205@thinkingcat.com> <414FEFFE.7090404@zurich.ibm.com> <85DDA364DCE0FE2485763318@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <41500E33.5000808@zurich.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <41500E33.5000808@zurich.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
Subject: Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3

On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 01:19:15PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> >Brian,
> >
> >I've seen some argument that Scenario C, being more well-defined, is 
> >actually less complex than Scenario O.
> 
> I would really dispute that. There are layers of complexity in either
> case, and I think the scenario O analysis, because it's based on a
> real, existing organisation rather than a hypothetical one, simply
> contains more detail.

I'm with Brian, in favor of O.  The way I see it, the critical issue is
tightening up *our* processes, not who we deal with.  Once we do that we
can work out contracts with anyone who meet our criteria, and it will be
at least as easy to do so with an entity we have experience with and
whose actions we can predict well.  We will be much less at risk once
our own procedures are clearly established.

swb

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.19.0 | Report a Bug | By Email