nanog mailing list archives
Re: carping about CARP
From: Andrew Sullivan <asullivan () dyn com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:23:52 -0500
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:01:54PM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
implementation would not have been accepted. The result would be a draft that would never be adopted and so it is back to start.
"Adopted" by whom? The procedure, even at the time, did not require in any way IETF consensus. Getting a number requires that you tell others what is going on, not that you justify the going on itself.
Did you ever read any of the IETF mailing lists and looked at the email addresses of those people pushing the hardest? At least in the ones I'm subscribed to the bias is obvious.
I think that _ad hominem_ arguments are fallacious, and should be dismissed as such. A -- Andrew Sullivan Dyn Labs asullivan () dyn com
Current thread:
- Re: carping about CARP, (continued)
- Re: carping about CARP Christopher Morrow (Nov 29)
- Re: carping about CARP Randy Bush (Nov 30)
- Re: carping about CARP Stuart Henderson (Nov 30)
- Re: carping about CARP Randy Bush (Nov 30)
- Re: carping about CARP David Walker (Nov 30)
- Re: carping about CARP Robert E. Seastrom (Nov 30)
- Re: carping about CARP Henning Brauer (Nov 30)
- Re: carping about CARP Robert E. Seastrom (Nov 30)
- Re: carping about CARP David Conrad (Nov 30)
- Re: carping about CARP Doug Barton (Nov 30)
- Re: carping about CARP Claudio Jeker (Nov 30)
- Re: carping about CARP Andrew Sullivan (Nov 30)
- Re: carping about CARP Nick Hilliard (Nov 30)
- Re: carping about CARP Robert E. Seastrom (Nov 30)
- Re: carping about CARP Christopher Morrow (Nov 29)
- Re: carping about CARP David Walker (Nov 30)
- Re: carping about CARP Andrew Sullivan (Nov 30)
- Re: carping about CARP Owen DeLong (Nov 30)
- Re: carping about CARP Robert E. Seastrom (Nov 30)
- Re: carping about CARP Robert E. Seastrom (Nov 30)