Re: My views on the Scenario O & C

Scott W Brim <sbrim@cisco.com> Sat, 25 September 2004 11:07 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 HAA19627; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:07:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CBAWR-0001De-LK; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:15:24 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CBAKm-0006Sg-Dd; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:03:20 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CBAIf-0006B1-U1 for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:01:09 -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 HAA19161 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:01:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CBAPh-00015t-MC for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:08:36 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Sep 2004 07:17:10 -0400
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from cisco.com (rtp-vpn3-131.cisco.com [10.82.216.131]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with SMTP id i8PB0Qbx029577 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:00:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cisco.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:00:25 -0400
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:00:25 -0400
From: Scott W Brim <sbrim@cisco.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20040925110025.GZ2280@sbrim-w2k01>
Mail-Followup-To: Scott W Brim <sbrim@cisco.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <6.1.2.0.2.20040924123858.01deecd8@mailhost.iprg.nokia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.2.20040924123858.01deecd8@mailhost.iprg.nokia.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2
Subject: Re: My views on the Scenario O & 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: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126

I agree completely with Bob.  I want to point out one issue where
vigilance will be important:

On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 12:39:53PM -0700, Bob Hinden allegedly wrote:
> Housing the IETF administrative activity in ISOC seems to me to be a
> much simpler solution to our administrative problems and will require
> much less work to get it set up.  I am concerned that the independent
> approach will take considerably more cycles and work from the IETF
> leadership to get it set up and functioning.  This will take away from
> working on what I consider to be more important problems.  

I agree in principle but part of what got us into this situation was the
feeling that we could just let ISOC (and/or CNRI) just take care of the
non-technical details.  Let's avoid even leaning that way this time.

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