[rfc-i] Some questions on the model and the motivations

Ole Jacobsen ole at cisco.com
Tue Jan 4 10:40:29 PST 2011


Can I make a plea that we not get into a personal war of words about 
this? 

It seems to me that the RSE topic has generated a fair amount of 
"heated arguments" and (sadly) a lack of conversion towards a common
understanding or agreement about the end goal. Maybe we need a 
different forum (a teleconferece perhaps) to iron out the crucial
points, maybe we need other independently written strawman proposals
to debate, I am not sure. But we've so far expended a lot of energy
(and it seems emotion) without a clear resolution in sight.

Let's try to get over the fact that there are strong personalities
involved and get this all resolved soon.

A couple of years ago I served on a committee which was chaired by 
someone with a personality and approach that really made life
difficult for me from day one. We had frequent arguments and 
disagreements, but in the end we became great friends perhaps because 
we disagreed without (mostly) being disagreeable. 

I am hoping that this particular process can have a similar outcome, 
and that nobody ends up as "enemies" as a result.

Please?

Ole


Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: ole at cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj



On Tue, 4 Jan 2011, Scott O. Bradner wrote:

> 
> Russ dismissed Glenn's good work by saying:
> > This comes across as a flip answer.  I really think it deserves a more.
> 
> I join others in saying that Russ did Glenn a diservice in his own flip answer
> 
> seems to me that Glenn did what he was asked to do and that work product
> is being largely ignored by the very people who should be taking it seriously
> 
> a sad development from the IETF "leadership"
> 
> Scott
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list