IETF Logo Mail Archive

re: Scenario C or Scenario O ? - I say let us go for C !

sob@harvard.edu (scott bradner) Thu, 23 September 2004 14:01 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 KAA14365; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:01:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAUGy-0008S1-Dq; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:08:36 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAU76-0003hT-AO; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:58:24 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAU4d-00038g-7w for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:55:51 -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 JAA13900 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:55:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu ([140.247.60.212] helo=newdev.harvard.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAUBP-0008Kk-Pb for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:02:53 -0400
Received: by newdev.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 117BAAA3C2; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:55:18 -0400 (EDT)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20040923135518.117BAAA3C2@newdev.harvard.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:55:18 -0400
From: sob@harvard.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c
Subject: re: Scenario C or Scenario O ? - I say let us go for C !
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: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8

Bert said:
> From what I have seen/read sofar, my preference is to go for Scenario C. 
> Yes, Scenario O seems somewhat simpler. 
> Yes, Scenario O seems acceptable today.

just to be clear it is my opinion that
Scenario O is significantly simpler
and that Scenario C intruduces significant risks to the future of the
IETF for no supportble reasons

I have seen no convincing justification from anyone to support an
adoption of Scenario C 

Scott

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email