Subject: RE: [Ieprep] representation & IETF culture

From: "Gunn, Janet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:20:58 -0500

And you think that crass generalizations and name calling are a USEFUL ways
of spending that "very, very valuable time"?

I enjoy the technical discussion, and I like to think I am learning
something from all the different perspectives.

But the name calling is getting VERY old.  Makes it hard to appreciate the
useful information that is SOMETIMES included in the same posts.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 3:09 PM
To: Gunn, Janet
Cc: Rex Buddenberg; RJ Atkinson; Steve Silverman; 'ieprep '
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] representation & IETF culture

      On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Gunn, Janet wrote:
    > And similar "stupid requirements" NEVER happen in the commercial
world?

The "two wrongs make a right" argument is orthoganal to the question of
whether we should let the very, very valuable time of the IETF be used as
a rubber-stamping mechanism for one customer's procurement process with
vendors they're already working with.

                                -Bill

_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

---

From: Sean Donelan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:25:10 -0500 (EST)

So what were the program results for ERLink (Emergency Response Link) the
NCS set up using the Internet (i.e. a "secure" web site) in the 1990's?

Where there problems?  Did it work?  Did emergency/first responders find
it useful? Was there a problem in the Internet which affected its
performance? Or was it cancelled because it didn't solve a useful problem?

If there were specific problems identified, perhaps we could fix them.