In some mail from Marcus J. Ranum, sie said: > > Most of the responses I've seen on this list and other places > imply that the universal response to BEEP has been gales > of uprorious laughter, in a Monty-Python-esque sort of way. > I haven't been tracking the IETF's efforts (because I know > that whatever comes out the back end will be overengineered, > overcomplex, barely functional, and will lack the fundamental > property of unity of mechanism with other core systems) - it > sounds like BEEP got stuck into the mix because it was > someone on some committee's brainchild, and now you've > got another layer that makes it an option? Ugh. You > know the old joke about an elephant being a mouse designed > by a committee? The IETF designs garbage trucks. You know, reading this, it makes me think that the IETF has turned into something like the IEEE or one of those similar organisations...you know, the antitheses of what it started out as. > If I *cared* what was going on in the working group, I'd wonder > what the hell they were thinking. They are probably thinking, if we're going to change this, lets change it in a way that solves all of the problems we might ever have with it, I bet. But we all know what the IETF is really there for - to give some engineers an excuse to get work to pay for them to travel to cities far away that work wouldn't have paid for them to visit. Darren _______________________________________________ LogAnalysis mailing list LogAnalysis@private http://lists.shmoo.com/mailman/listinfo/loganalysis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Mon Aug 16 2004 - 12:02:27 PDT