IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: So, where to repeat?

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 09 August 2012 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0D321F8732 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.591
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.008, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c8xGjQ34AMaj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3C8E21F872D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-55-201.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.55.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q79FBDk6026495 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:11:14 -0700
Message-ID: <5023D308.3030708@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:11:04 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Subject: Re: So, where to repeat?
References: <20120808205220.11419.qmail@joyce.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20120808205220.11419.qmail@joyce.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:11:19 -0000

On 8/8/2012 1:52 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> ps. btw, what is it that you think is different about this from the way
>> we /do/ discuss protocol specs?
>
> People discussing venues are less willing to believe that anyone
> else's experience or issues differ from their own.


A common problem in /any/ IETF discussion, technical or otherwise, is 
the tendency of speakers to live within two views:

1.  If it is good enough for me, it must be good enough for everyone

2.  If it is unacceptable to me, it must be unacceptable for everyone.

We are not a very empathetic crowd.

I can't say that I see the 'less' that you assert.

d/


-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email