Subject: what John Welch wants

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 23:24:48 -0500

> If we don't make IP as easy, or easier to use as
> Appletalk, then the group is a failure.

This is not in this group's charter.  If this group is trying to do that,
it's violating its charter and it needs a mercy killing.

zeroconf is chartered "to enable [IP] networking in the *absence* of 
configuration and administration", as in isolated networks.  It is
NOT chartered to change how IP works on configured/managed networks.

Keith

---

From: "John C. Welch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 23:37:26 -0500

> it's violating its charter and it needs a mercy killing.

Maybe it does. Maybe the IETF is simply unable to function at the user
level, and should stop bothering. It doesn't have a top notch track record
there, and from what I can tell, 'easy' isn't a concept that geeks readily
grok. For the most part, we've lost touch with the rest of the world.

> NOT chartered to change how IP works on configured/managed networks.

If we don't make things easy to use for normal people, then why bloody
bother? I definitely have things that could easily use the time I spend
tilting at the "Networking is a geek thing" windmill.

But I have family who aren't geeks, and they hate everything about the
current setup schemes.

And how is making IPv4 as easy to use as Appletalk *changing* how IP works
on a managed network? You're reducing the level of difficulty in setting it
up. It is still going to work the same.

But then, maybe we fear the loss of our power over people who have not the
secret knowledge...

john

-- 
John C. Welch
Consultant III
Administrative Computing
(617) 253 - 1368 work
(508) 579 - 7380 cell
bynkii2          AIM

---

From: "Bill Rees" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 23:11:14 -0800

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>

> NOT chartered to change how IP works on configured/managed networks.

Seems to me that Apple is already heading in that direction (as easy as
AppleTalk) with or without this group.  If what this group wants to achieve
is different than what Apple is already doing, then please tell Apple to
quit identifying Rendezvous with zeroconf to avoid misleading the public on
the concept of zero configuration (zeroconf?  coincidence?) Apple is
striving for.Else the expectation for easy as AppleTalk configuration will
spill over onto this group whereupon the shit will not only hit the fan but
probably launch the fucker into orbit.

---

From: "Warden, Matt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 02:26:42 -0500 (EST)

On Dec 28, Bill Rees had something to say about Re: what John Welch wants

>striving for.

Is that what 'zeroconf' stands for? I've only recently joined this list
and the conversations I've seen so far led me to believe it stood for
'zero confidence'

Are the personal attacks and endless bickering necessary? I, as a user,
enjoy the networking *advancements* in Mac OS X and would like to see
things progress in that manner. In fact, that's how I found you. I wanted
to know where these advancements came from.

But, if after all this time you people are still bickering over
fundamental PURPOSES for this group, the way to see things progress is NOT
with your group. And if this continues, people are going to subscribe to
that belief and look to Apple or other organizations/companies to do their
own "standardizing".

Progress is being demanded by the industry. And if this group decides to
bicker instead, it'll be left behind.

Please don't view this as an attack just because it is not positive.

Thanks,

--
mattwarden
mattwarden.com

---

From: Brad Hards <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 20:16:05 +1100

> and the conversations I've seen so far led me to believe it stood for
Welcome to an example of failure of peer review.

> to know where these advancements came from.
If you are interested in implementing this stuff (rather than arguing about 
why it might not work), feel free to drop over to 
[email-masked]. Its a pretty low volume list, because 
we tend to focus on coding and testing. 
Also see: http://zeroconf.sourceforge.net for the limited progress to date.

Brad
- -- 
http://linux.conf.au. 22-25Jan2003. Perth, Aust. I'm registered. Are you?

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 08:20:36 -0500

> Progress is being demanded by the industry.

changes to IP that break applications are not progress.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 09:02:08 -0500

> AppleTalk) with or without this group. 

Apple isn't making IP as easy as appletalk; it's defining a different
and way to use IP on a LAN which is somewhat incompatible with traditional
IP.  The effect is to make IP more confusing for users and more difficult
for applications and support people.

---

From: "John C. Welch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 12:24:17 -0500

> for applications and support people.

You have yet to show us a single example of this except in a mysterious
"off-list" email, which, since it is therefore not up for public criticism,
is rather like the infamous papers Joe McCarthy used to wave while shouting,
"I have here a list of names..."

I must however, congratulate you on a fine bit of misdirection. By making me
the focal point of things, you have rather effectively, once again, killed
the ability of this group to get any real work done, and avoided having to
show any verifiable proof of these massive problems you say will, not may,
but will happen.

But then, killing any IPv4 advancement seems to be a root cause for you.

john

-- 
John C. Welch
Consultant III
Administrative Computing
(617) 253 - 1368 work
(508) 579 - 7380 cell
bynkii2          AIM

---

From: "Bill Rees" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:33:59 -0800

----- Original Message -----

> for applications and support people.

Well then I suggest this group disband since there is no agreement on what
zeroconf means.  For Apple it seems to mean automatic configuration for
devices plugged into the local network so that the user is not directly
involved in setup.

For this group, zeroconf seems to mean a variety of different things bearing
little in common with Apple's goals.  This is a strong indication of a very
poor charter which is the fundamental issue under "discussion" here.

---

From: "Jay A. Kreibich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 23:11:17 -0600

> changes to IP that break applications are not progress.

  Yeah, CIDR was a real step backwards in its time.  Caused lots of
  things to break.

   -j

-- 
                     Jay A. Kreibich | Integration & Software Eng.
                        [email-masked] | Campus IT & Edu. Svcs.
          <http://www.uiuc.edu/~jak> | University of Illinois at U/C

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 00:19:08 -0500

>   Yeah, CIDR was a real step backwards in its time.

Maybe my memory is fading, I don't recall too much breakage as a result of 
CIDR.  Most applications didn't try to be aware of network topology, so CIDR 
mostly affected hosts and routers and diagnostic tools.  And of course the net 
was much smaller and less diverse then and much better able to handle a 
certain amout of disruption.

The ironic thing about your citing CIDR as a defense for LL is that
LL forces apps to try to be aware of topology and address structure
whereas CIDR took advantage of the fact that most apps didn't try to 
be aware of such things.

Keith