Re: Keyed-MD5, and HTTP-NG

[anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com]

On Wed, 1 Nov 1995 hallam@w3.org wrote:

> > There were two names on the MD5 document -- mine and Bill
> > Simpson's. Bill didn't tell me that he was called (I suspect he 
> > would have), and I wasn't called, either. We were the only two 
> > editors of that portion of the specification.
> 
> This appears to have been a problem from both ends. A number of
> people arround here only heard about the IPsec work when it had
> reached the final call phase.

Hmmm, I guess (as usual) people weren't keeping up with the drafts.  It 
really makes some of us outsiders wonder what the IETF actually does in 
its gilded white towers.

> I think this highlights one of the problems with the IETF we need a 
> much broader infrastructure for understanding what progress other 
> groups have made. The time when we can expect to do everything through 
> email alone is past. I wish I could persuade more people in the IETF
> that the Web infrastructure could provide a valuable assistance
> as a collaboration tool for their needs. Unfortunately the approach seems
> to be that because there are is a person living at the end of a 2400
> baud modem in vermont who cannot configure his PPP we should all continue
> in the stone age. 

I guess that's certainly an _elitist_ attitude.  Let's leave Vermont alone
for a second and maybe talk about including the developing world in the
process.  That might explain some of the resistance. 

In many parts of the world, the basic telecommunications infrastructure
simply won't support a 2400 baud connection.  Does this then mean that
there should be no advocate, no voice for citizens from those regions
because they are limited to 300 baud? 

Hopefully we all agree that developing nations are equally entitled to a
voice in establishing standards which will define the foundations of the
next century.  I can't imagine anyone arguing for a pre-emptive silencing.
of voices which strive to be heard through setting technical standards as
a floor -- minimum standards which are designed *purposefully* to exclude. 

Next thing someone will advocate is EBCDIC, or something equally lame
idea, I guess ... 

> We could improve readability of RFCs through using HTML and reduce
> the flamage on mailing lists through collaboration tools like the
> open meeting. But we don't because it hasn't been done that way in the
> past.

Well, I think that it is possible to read a mailing list through HTML if
that is what you would like to do.  You have that option and choice. But
this does not mean that you should dictate that everyone should follow
your choices and preferences. 

While some would argue, that the attempted imposition of your personal
preferences is demonstrative of a monstrous ego that does not recognize
inherent individual jurisdiction, I won't expose myself to the accusation
that I would advance such a specious argument, I will simply ask what you
would suggest is the solution to including alternate views and voices, if 
it isn't a mailing list.

Will the standards track follow a policy of inclusion or historic policies
of exclusion? 

> I would like to see a collaboration system where I can present an expert
> with the context of a proposal very rapidly without expecting them to
> read the archives of an entire mailing list.

It really doesn't take all that long to get up to speed.  A couple of
months, tops.

> 	Phill
> 


Alice de 'nonymous ...

                                  ...just another one of those...


P.S.  This post is in the public domain.
                  C.  S.  U.  M.  O.  C.  L.  U.  N.  E.