Subject: OPES is evil incarnate

From: "Mike O'Dell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 08:22:53 -0400 (EDT)

I can't believe what i'm reading here

the though of the IETF hosting a group whose primary purpose
is to attack the end-to-end principle is abhorrent.  there is
no other both obvious and likely use for this "technology"
than unwanted interdiction.  it is evil.  "Just Say No."

yes indeed, sometimes people will insist on doing stupid
things, but they should go do them elsewhere, well away from
the IETF and certainly without the IETF impremateur.

the premise that by hosting them we might be able to 
help them be slightly less stupid is just pointless.

creating an OPES working group will be a collossal
mistake the IETF will regret for a very long time

harumph.

	-mo
	Resident Crank

---

From: Greg Minshall <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 08:58:27 -0700

Mike,

i don't know, your proposal seems pretty radical to me.  once we've said "no" 
to OPES, it would be incumbent on us to say "no" to other efforts.  what lamps 
would light our way?  what gives *us* the right to plug our noses at some 
stench, going "ewww, pweee"?  i think, as Robert Burns might say, "we should 
nat go that way"...

or, maybe we should.

Greg

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:20:06 -0700

> i don't know, your proposal seems pretty radical to me.  once we've said
> "no" to OPES, it would be incumbent on us to say "no" to other efforts.

that alone might be a good reason to say no to opes.

randy

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 12:08:15 -0500

Focusing on the positive...

"end-to-end" is important, but relative to a particular
Protocol/AddressSpace architecture

The IPv8 cloud is end-to-end and can overlay on the IPv4 cloud.
The IPv16 cloud is end-to-end and designed to be native and fast.

Both can overlay on IPv6, which is generic and slow
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
2002:<IPv4>:0000:<IPv8> vs. 3FFE:<IPv6>

http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp

---

From: "Mike O'Dell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 13:33:00 -0400

you missed the point

i know several people who eat picked fish for
breafast, one who professes an abiding love 
of lutefisk

i have no problem with their pursuit of this 
particular penchant as it relates to them

i simply prefer they not come looking to sit by me 
while they enjoy it, and i am not obliged to issue 
invitations

the most important part of the Internet is that
one does NOT need permission from the IETF or anyone
else to innovate.  likewise, one should not expect
an annointing of anything by anyone in particular.

	cheers,
	-mo

---

From: Greg Minshall <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:34:46 -0700

you missed my (too dry) humor.

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 12:59:50 -0700

And so:-)...   May the best technology win!

In general, the best does win, in due course;-)...\Stef

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 23:52:09 -0700 (PDT)

> that alone might be a good reason to say no to opes.

Amen. Ultimately, it is a question of priorities. The resources of the
IETF are finite, and  we need to spend our time & energy on things that
really matter. Unless we can say "no" to things that are lower priority,
it will not be possible for us to say "yes" to those things that can
really make a difference. When I look at the list of WGs, it's really hard
to argue that this is the allocation of attention that would occur if we
were to try to come up with the list of the most important issues in
networking.