Re: What is at stake?

To: Lloyd Wood <L.Wood at eim.surrey.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: What is at stake?
From: George Michaelson <ggm at apnic.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 23:00:06 +1000
Cc: "ietf at ietf.org" <ietf at ietf.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:50:24 +0000." <Pine.SOL.4.43.0201241245180.7528-100000@phaestos.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

> 'Australia's fallen off the net again!'

Actually, that was Britain in 1985/6, when the BBN butterfly lacked sufficient
memory to handle the routes and the UK dropped off the bottom.  Ah, where
would we be without fixed price contracts. no cash, no fixums. 

Better yet the hosts.txt file and telnet death on a 60 second login: timeout
before it could scan the file...

So if the IETF doesn't manage the Internet, how come it keeps defining MIBs?

Judging by the IRTF session on content, the lawyers own it all anyway...

cheers
	-George

References:
- Re: What is at stake?
  - From: Lloyd Wood

Prev by Date: Re: What is at stake?
Next by Date: Revision to RFC2727 - NOMCOM
Previous by thread: Re: What is at stake?
Next by thread: Re: What is at stake?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: What is at stake?

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.