and then send it to the IETF's DNS WG's as a request.
Tell them what you need to accomplish and not how to do it, and they will build a protocol to satisfy this request
Really!? "They" will build a protocol for us!?!?!? And just who do you think the IETF are, hmmm? Reminds me of the Pogo cartoonist Walt Kelly who said, "We have met the enemy and he is us!". May I suggest that all this advice about what "we" should be doing is rather out of place on the NANOG list. This list is to discuss Internet operational stuff that impacts North American Network Operators. Operational stuff is usually technical and it usually is here and now rather than some indeterminate point in the future. This isn't the rules of NANOG, it's just the way things are around here. Anything that falls too far outside of this core focus just doesn't get the list fired up enough to do anything beyond talk and complaining. If you want to change the world, create new protocols or build an working group on some topic or other, you really shouldn't try to do it on NANOG because it just ain't gonna work. You may think that NANOG is in a rut and that's quite true but it is a comfortable rut and one that provides enough benefit to the NANOG participants to keep it going more or less the same way as it has for years. There definitely is room in the world for all of the things that have been discussed recently, it's just that NANOG isn't a particularly fruitful place to discuss them because you won't find enough recruits here to form a critical mass. If you truly are serious about some of these things then you will take the discussion off the NANOG list and make a serious effort to create a working group with a real action plan. Anything else is just posturing and we've seen it all before. It does not impress us. Thanks, --Michael Dillon P.S. No, I'm not the NANOG police; I'm just stating my opinion.
Michael - one of the things that I am sure of is that this life and in fact things on this earth are moving targets. And what I see you saying here is "leave us alone - I want it to stay the way it was"... Am I wrong and if so how? Todd -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Michael.Dillon@radianz.com Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 8:46 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Curing the BIND pain
and then send it to the IETF's DNS WG's as a request.
Tell them what you need to accomplish and not how to do it, and they will build a protocol to satisfy this request
Really!? "They" will build a protocol for us!?!?!? And just who do you think the IETF are, hmmm? Reminds me of the Pogo cartoonist Walt Kelly who said, "We have met the enemy and he is us!". May I suggest that all this advice about what "we" should be doing is rather out of place on the NANOG list. This list is to discuss Internet operational stuff that impacts North American Network Operators. Operational stuff is usually technical and it usually is here and now rather than some indeterminate point in the future. This isn't the rules of NANOG, it's just the way things are around here. Anything that falls too far outside of this core focus just doesn't get the list fired up enough to do anything beyond talk and complaining. If you want to change the world, create new protocols or build an working group on some topic or other, you really shouldn't try to do it on NANOG because it just ain't gonna work. You may think that NANOG is in a rut and that's quite true but it is a comfortable rut and one that provides enough benefit to the NANOG participants to keep it going more or less the same way as it has for years. There definitely is room in the world for all of the things that have been discussed recently, it's just that NANOG isn't a particularly fruitful place to discuss them because you won't find enough recruits here to form a critical mass. If you truly are serious about some of these things then you will take the discussion off the NANOG list and make a serious effort to create a working group with a real action plan. Anything else is just posturing and we've seen it all before. It does not impress us. Thanks, --Michael Dillon P.S. No, I'm not the NANOG police; I'm just stating my opinion.
participants (2)
-
Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com -
todd glassey