Subject: About Bind Was:[ifwp] Re: The Non-Profit Issue Again

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 05:54:41 +0000

Roeland and all,

  FYI, I am copying Brian Carpenter, David Conrad, and Paul Vixie.  Just
in to keep everyone here on this post ( good one Roeland) on the same page
and in case anyone wants to deny anything I am about to say (See below).

Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

> At 10:47 PM 11/12/98 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >>Unfortunately, the public discussion of this topic has been dominated by
> >>people with little experience or concern with operational stability.  Logic
> >>like yours (and mine) is entirely run-of-the-mill for experienced
> >>operators, which is why it has been so frustrating to have others dismiss
> >>it out of hand.
> >
> >
> >Yeah, Dave has years of experience on all of us. I suppose my 16 years
> >of work are meaningless because I don't have my name on an RFC.
> >Anyone want to buy some slightly used patent applications?
>
> I dunno, as long as we are talking 'bout who's is bigger, I think Stef may
> take the geriatric award, but my CTO has him beat, maybe. I'm a youngster
> with only 22 years in pure development (that's 22 years vs 1 year 22 times
> <grin>). Never had the time to mess with writing RFC vs CODE though.

  RFC's are "Work In Progress", hardly something you should base a standardon.
Saying this in this bold of a way I an sure may inflame the IETF, but this
is really one of the things that has been at the root (No pun  intended) with
several traditional internet organizations vs real lab testing and THAN
establishing
a standard based on those lab testing and simulations.

> I left
> RFC's for the academics, I was always on a dead-line. I did get a FidoNet
> FTS on record though, took two hours to write it up one midnight, then back
> to work. Rand Bush shocked the hell out of me as fast as he put it in (he
> was FTS chair at the time).

  Well being the chair of FTS certainly helped I bet in getting it in.!  Anyone
elsewould just be ignored or scoffed at by the IETF.

>
>
> Then there's my CTO, a Dr Bosworth (PhD CS and all the rest of the
> alphabet), He has almost 30 years, with 14 of them at Bell Labs. He's the
> one that said Dave's blowing FUD. But, I'm not so sure. Now that I know
> that I'm looking at the caching system I have a better clue of what to look
> for. I gotta look anyway, that's the way I am. Maybe it's because I don't
> have that PhD?

  I have a Masters in CS, having a PhD, is just a honoree FUD really.  I
don'tgive that much credit.  Show me some code or let see some lab results, that
matters!

>
>
> BTW, you can ALWAYS knock a caching system because you NEVER know when
> you've reached a limit.

  Now this is total FUD, here.  You know when you have crossed the line when
youcan see cache thrashing.  There are several monitoring tools that can evaluate

that for you on the fly pretty well.  I don't know where people come up with this

nonsense!

> It involves one of Dijkstra's non-computable tasks.
> But, if we waited until that was perfect then we'd never have built disk
> caches, LAN caches, L2 caches, and all the rest. Do you realize how many
> caches there are in the average PC? Let alone the complexity of the
> integrated caching, as a system? Another good example is your average
> RDBMS. Why do you think Tbyte datawarehouses are so intimidating? You
> usually have to build a cascaded RAID5 pack, 3 layers deep, with caching
> all the way down, to get it. Latency is a real problem there.

  Look Roeland, all you need is a multi engine box to handle with about 10gbof
real memory and load your indexes and most commonly hit data elements
into member and than fence off so much memory to handle the number of processor
engines you have on that box and you can cut latency as much a 60% without
an even well designed database.  We have 6 3Tbyte Oracle 8.0 databases
on 6 16 engine Sun 6000 boxes and have great response with as many as
1500 simultaneous user accessing.

>
>
> Those folk that say BIND is not used may be right, but BIND *is* the
> reference standard. If it is NOT BIND and it breaks where BIND does not
> then it's broken software and needs to be replaced with BIND, period.

  We believe this idea to be scare tactics based on a NON-REAL-Standard.Reference
standards don't mean anything to me, never have other than
just that, A REFERENCE, nothing more nothing less.  BIND (Vixie Version)
which we now refer to as VV-BIND, is stable to be sure, but is about
4 years behind current technology.  Our BINDPlus 1.3.2 improves
caching performance by a factor of 5.  We have real time data and
over 30 implementations currently and requests for some 70 more.

  I informed Paul about our BINDPlus.  He wanted me to just send him a
copy so HE could evaluate it.  Well we don't make it a practice to just
send our proprietary software as a general business rule.  I offered to
give him access at our labs, but never heard back.  (Paul, not trying
to slam you or anything, but I do still have the relevant E-Mails).
We are always ready to have anyone evaluate any of our software in OUR
labs, but that is it.  I am fairly sure why I didn't hear back from Paul was
because that was about the time he was putting things together for his
non-profit company I believe and David Conrad (APNIC FAME) was
coming on board I believe.

> It
> you cann't get current version BIND to run on the box then get another box
> (That's for you Michael). For everybody else's information, the resolver
> libraries come with BIND so saying they don't is FUD for certain (aka
> bald-faced lying). The DNS system is BIND defined, or is that the other way
> 'round? If BIND don't do it then it's not official. I'm not proposing
> anything that BIND does not support now, this minute, this version, either
> BIND4, or BIND8. It sort of like, if Cisco breaks the GateD BGP4 or OSPF
> implementation with their router, it's the router that's broken, not GateD
> (the reference standard).

  In essence this analogy is correct.  But I would add that any software mustfit
the current hardware that is available.  If it doesn't, than the software is
broken, or there is not a good mesh.  Software vendors and hardware
vendors must work together or software vendors must work to existing
hardware that is in place now.

> Anything Cicsco does extra is "above and beyond"
> but it had better not break the reference standard. The same goes for BIND
> and anyone else's DNS implementation.

  Essentially this is correct, sadly.

>
>
> So, looking into BIND sources for enlightenment is not only valuable, it is
> definitive. If BIND can do it then not only is it doable, it *is* the
> standard.

  Well our BINDPlus can do it, which is the standard?  Not only can BINDPlusdo it
it can do it faster and better.  No outages yet.

>
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993)
> e-mail: <mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
> Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com
> Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
> Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/
> ___________________________________________
>  Who is John Galt?
>  "Atlas Shrugged" - Ayn Rand
>
> __________________________________________________
> To view the archive of this list, go to:
> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
>
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to [email-masked]
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> [email-masked]
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> [email-masked]
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [email-masked].
> ___END____________________________________________

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 05:54:41 +0000

Roeland and all,

nonsense!

 Regards,

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Nov 1998 03:32:09 -0800

> > then it's broken software and needs to be replaced with BIND, period.

That's largely true.  Although I will point out that several years ago
when Microsoft did their earliest non-BIND DNS implementation for NT,
they discovered that BIND could not handle certain legal wire formats
for AXFR.  Because of BIND's market dominance, they had to stop sending
those wire formats, and they got an undeserved bloody nose from it.  I
fixed BIND of course, since the protocol has precedence over the code.
Microsoft was right to avoid interoperability problems until the fix to
BIND was widely distributed, but make no mistake, BIND was broken and
the ultimate fix was to BIND rather than Microsoft's DNS.

I also pulled the UID and GID RR types out of BIND when I finally found
out that there was no RFC for them and that Berkeley had just allocated
their own type codes.  I hate that practice.  Just like I hate it when
Microsoft does it, as they did with their WINS RR types :-(.

>                                                BIND (Vixie Version)

I sure like all those miles on BIND's odometer though!

(We're rewriting the bottom half of BIND this year, under contract from
USG and give UNIX vendors, to add multiprocessor support and DNSSEC and
other stuff -- so I'll admit that the odometer thing can be overdone.)

> to slam you or anything, but I do still have the relevant E-Mails).

I have them too.  I didn't know what to say: if your stuff is not open-
source then I don't want to look at it since I don't want to taint BIND
with whatever I might learn from it.  On the other hand I love reading
code.  I didn't want to say yes, or no.  Your message is still in my
inbox :-).

> coming on board I believe.

There's been a lot going on, that's true.  We sure like having DRC here.

> > So, looking into BIND sources for enlightenment is not only valuable,
> > it is definitive. If BIND can do it then not only is it doable, it *is*
> > the standard.
> 
> Well our BINDPlus can do it, which is the standard?  Not only can BINDPlus
> do it it can do it faster and better.  No outages yet.

If your stuff is not based on BIND then please change its name.  If it is
based on BIND then please consider donating some money to the ISC so we can
keep enabling new businesses like yours by producing new versions.  Also,
if you're going to base your product name on ours, please put a disclaimer
on your web site pointing people at our site for "the original BIND".

As for the outages, BIND hasn't had an outage-style bug for a long time
The spectacular outages we've seen this year have been due to backend
database problems (in zone generation), provisioning problems, kernel
problems, operational problems, and procedural errors.
-- 
Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Nov 1998 03:32:09 -0800

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 15:56:19 -0800

Jeff,

>   FYI, I am copying Brian Carpenter, David Conrad, and Paul Vixie.

Given we're all fairly well known on the ietf list, this was likely
unnecessary.

>   RFC's are "Work In Progress", hardly something you should base a standardon.

Guess we should be using CLNP instead of IP, eh?

> We have real time data and
...
> Well our BINDPlus can do it, which is the standard?  

The standard is what is defined by the RFCs, not a particular
implementation.  As Paul has pointed out, BIND has been wrong in the
past and has had to be fixed.  In the new version of BIND we're working
on we'll be following the RFCs as closely as possible and should there
be a difference between our implementation and the RFCs, the RFCs (of
course) win.  In fact, I'm working to find funding for the development
of an independent open source conformance test suite for the DNS
protocols (which BINDv9 will be required to pass).  We would welcome
your (or anyone else's) financial contribution to the development of
this test suite (or for the development of BINDv9).

>No outages yet.

BIND is "blessed" with having to run in a variety of environments, some
of which are incredibly stressful to the (shall we say) organic
development of the source.  Despite the fact that BIND runs and supports
the loads placed upon it in these environments, we are aware of numerous
limitations in BINDv8. This is one of the reasons we've embarked on the
BINDv9 development effort.  When your version of BIND reaches a few more
orders of magnitude in "implementations", I suspect you'll begin to see
cracks as well.

Regards,
-drc

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 15:56:19 -0800

Jeff,

...

Regards,
-drc

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 02:42:22 +0000

David and all,

  Thank you fro responding David.  >;)  ( See below your comments for ours)

> Given we're all fairly well known on the ietf list, this was likely

  Ok No problem.  >;)

> Guess we should be using CLNP instead of IP, eh?

  Not at all.  What ever gave you this idea.  Standards should be basedon working
code.

> course) win.

  Basing a standard on a "Work in Progress" seems a bit infinitive.  Thisis not to
say that IETF RFC's are not extremely useful, however.  Seems
a mindset that has been the mantra of the IETF is in fact placing a
hindrance on advancing technology and limiting unduly, in our view,
the needs and demands of the marketplace.

> In fact, I'm working to find funding for the development

  Great idea David!  This should have been done years ago.  What are thepreliminary
numbers, financially?  Where are the location(s) of such
test sites?

> orders of magnitude in "implementations", I suspect you'll begin to see

  I am a bit dismayed at you obvious slur to our BINDPlus, but of courseI can
understand the motivation.  However we do not view or BINDPlus
as necessarily a competitor, though our customers may, to ISC's BINDv8
or future BINDv9.  Rather, we view BINDPlus as a adjunctive enhancement due
to it's obvious and well tested performance advantage.

  As I have posted to you and Paul Vixie, we would be happy to due
a head's up comparison under any simulated conditions that you
at ISC may desire, or work in conjunction with ISC, jointly in
assisting you in improving and/or enhancing your future BINDv9's
performance and configuration flexibility.  >;)

 Regards,

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 02:42:22 +0000

David and all,

  Ok No problem.  >;)

 Regards,

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 05:37:08 -0800

Jeff,

> understand the motivation.

Um, which slur is that? I was merely pointing out that 30
"implementations" may be insufficient to ferret out the numerous edge
conditions that make implementing the DNS a non-trivial excercise.

> Rather, we view BINDPlus as a adjunctive enhancement due

Sorry, I don't consider 30 implementations, none of which are in a root
server environment, "well tested" nor does handwaving about large
performance increases without something backing those numbers up signify
"obvious" to me.  Talk (in particular, electronic talk on the Internet
where no one knows you (or your software) is a dog) is cheap -- perhaps
some of the folk who are using your 30 implementations would be willing
to come forward and corroborate some of your claims?  I suspect the root
nameserver operators (in particular) would be fascinated to hear of an
implementation of the DNS protocols that would offer better performance
and higher stability than BIND.

Also, as an aside, I do not consider BINDPlus (or "Bindles") competition
to BIND in any way.  The concept is a bit strange since ISC is a
non-profit and BIND is a reference implementation of DNS -- the whole
point is for people to take it and mangle it as they see fit.  That's
why we give it away with essentially no limitations.
 
> performance and configuration flexibility.  >;)

OK, Jeff.  Numerous people have sent me mail (an excerpt of one such
message included below) indicating that any discussion with you is a
waste of time as you are a fraud.  It would seem few people believe you
nor do they consider your comments of any more significance than line
noise (in fact, you've just joined Allisat, Fleming, and Denninger on
the 'discard' list at ietf+censored).

However, as I generally prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt
(I mean, it would be astoundingly infantile and indicative of deep
psychological problems for an individual (or individuals) to fabricate
all the things you claim to have done, no?), I'd be more than happy to
have you come to ISC in Redwood City (950 Charter Street), California
and have objective independent performance tests done in our testing lab
at no charge -- something I'm sure you would find of value, if for no
other reason than to prove to the numerous doubting Thomases out there
that you do, in fact, exist and do have something to offer other than
postings on various mailing lists.

When would you like to come?

Regards,
-drc

P.S. In another messages you refer to your software three times as
"Bindles" (which Michael Dillon indicates is a slang term for crack 
cocaine in Kansas City, perhaps assuming the "kc" in your userid at 
Netcom denotes Kansas City), not BINDPlus.  Could you clarify?  The 
claim that you were guilty of "miswording" seems a bit weak given you
did it three times and what you claim to have meant to type instead 
("Bind's") doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.

P.P.S. I note your claims of improved performance vis-a-vis BIND has
increased from 5 times to "several orders of magnitude" over the space
of two days.  Could you explain?

**************************

Jeff Williams' FAQ. (98/11.5)

--

1. Who is Jeff Williams?

Jeffrey A. Williams, <[email-masked]>, has claimed in
postings to various lists:

-- to be the Chief Executive Officer and the Co-Founder of the 4.8
billion dollar privately held employee owned INEG. INC

-- to be the Director of Internet Network Engineering and Senior
Java/CORBA Engineer for the Information Network Engineering Group,
INEG INC.

-- to be an ex-IBM Fellow,

-- to have to have graduated from UTD and to have a law degree from
SMU Law School

-- to have three degrees, MBA, Masters in Computer Science and
Engineering, and Law

-- to have served as a judge for 7 years

-- to be a member of the IETF

-- to serve on several medium sized business boards and on the boards
of several banks

-- to be the author of two books and is working on a third

-- to own 3 ISPs, including Frisco net, Deltanet and Wiltel, with 1.6
million users

-- to have been a fighter pilot with USMC, flying missions in Chile
and for the DEA, as a reserve pilot in the USMC, stationed out of
Grand Prairie air station just south of Dallas

-- to have been acting squadron commander of the Marine combat F4
squadron VMF214 (Black Sheep) at Tan Son Nhut during the Viet Nam war

-- to have spent several years in NIS (Naval Investigative Service)

-- Graduate of Naval Staff & War College

-- Retired Colonel, United States Marine Corps

However,

-- Jeff's 'INEG. INC' does not exist except as a fantasy in Jeff
Williams' mind.

-- Jeff changed the name of the company in his .sig, in Jan 1998,
from  'Information Eng. Group' to Information Network Eng. Group.
INEG. INC., when the real Information Engineering Group
<http://www.ieg-america.com/>, became aware of Jeff's use of their
name.

-- SMU Law School Registrar's office, (214) 768-2618, disclaims all
knowledge of Jeff.

Jeffrey A. Williams is a fake and an imposter.

--

2. Why should I take care in sending private email to Jeff Williams?

He may post it to the list. Ironically, in his postings of others'
private email so far the content has been counter-productive to his
reputation and credibility. You should presume any email to him will
posted to the list.

--

3. Is there other material available on Jeff Williams?

http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/03504.html
http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/05347.html
http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/05398.html
http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/05525.html
http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08015.html

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 05:37:08 -0800

Jeff,

 

Regards,
-drc

--

1. Who is Jeff Williams?

However,

--

--

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 20:03:40 +0000

David and all,

> conditions that make implementing the DNS a non-trivial excercise.

  This is your opinion, and that is fine with us.  We unfortunately for you do
nothappen to share it with you.  However I can understand you reasoning from
your point of view. Others mileage may vary.

> "obvious" to me.

  You didn't read my original reply to you David.  Or you are missing my point
entirely.We have "Tested" under very extreme conditions using "Simulated"
internet
Root server conditions that are known.  This is not the same as a production
environment but certainly is "At least" as vigorous, if not more so.

> Talk (in particular, electronic talk on the Internet
> to come forward and corroborate some of your claims?

  Some have already done so in several instances that I am personally aware
of..I
believe that those were sent to the IETF, without reply from the IETF
however.  Shame that, but sometimes it isn't worth the effort to wake up a mule.

> I suspect the root

  Many have already done so, and some of those are considering implementationsof
BINDPlus.

> why we give it away with essentially no limitations.

  Well David, as I have said repeatedly, BINDPlus is not intended tocompete with
BINDv4 or BINDv8 in any fashion, however some believe that it
should.  BINDPlus is not free however, and we stand behind our product,
with service contracts.

> the 'discard' list at ietf+censored).

  Well as the IETF has made a practice of late to censor some folks because they
may not agree with their practices is their own affair.  I personally have allot
or respect for the work that the IETF has done, and is doing, but I do not
necessarily agree with every thing they may propose.  (I still get postings
on certain areas that I have participated in from IETF, so a wonder if your
claim that I am "Censored" From the IETF is factual).  If you like I will
send you a few?  None of the people that you have mentioned that are
supposedly "Censored" are fraud's as you and a very few others contend.
I have received several inquiries dating back to 1996 in this regard
from the DOJ, and they seem to be quite satisfied.  That is good enough for me.

  I will also add here that, CENSORSHIP IN ANY OF ITS FORMS IS
FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG!

> all the things you claim to have done, no?),

  Well here we agree anyway.  >;)  Some of these people have on many many
occasions displayed seemingly infantile behavior on more than one well 
documented occasion, which I will not repeat yet again in the interest 
of kindness and sorrow for them.

> I'd be more than happy to

  I made a similar suggestion several months ago for ISC to come to OUR
labfacilities at 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas to Paul Vixie and the
ISC staff already.  No reply to that request to this day.  Therefore might
I suggest considering a neutral lab facility, or possibly might ISC be
interested
in reviewing our facility for robustness of capability compared to ISC's?
We have three CRAY YMP's and a Internet simulation capability used
by the University of Texas as well as MIT I believe that may be a bit
more appropriate for such testing.

BTW, I believe that I extended an offer to assist Paul Vixie and the then newly
forming ISC assistance in funding for ISC at that time.  I believe I still
have the relevant post.  I personally believe that forming ISC was a wise
an prudent idea, myself, but was a bit concerned for adequacy in funding.

> When would you like to come?

  I shall return the question to you for the second time as an answer.
When would YOU (ISC that is), like to come here?

> Netcom denotes Kansas City), not BINDPlus.  Could you clarify?

  Sure I will clarify for the 100th or so time now. "KC" was a nick name
given me a very long time ago.  It is based on a common fable about
a train engineer "KC Jones", Ever heard those fables?  "KCKID" was
a call sign I had while a F4 Driver in the USMC.  They just kinda stuck,
so I used them as an easy way to remember my Netcom address for those
times I Alias it to other addresses I use on occasion.  Does this help?  >;)

> The claim that you were guilty of "miswording" seems a bit weak given you

  Mercy, there sure are some paranoid people in this old world isn't there?
I suppose that you could make that interpretation if you choose to do
so, but it really was a miss-type on my part, certainly not intentional.

> of two days.  Could you explain?

I equate several orders of magnitude =  5 times.  Both mean the same thing,
one is obviously more definitive than the other.

> *

Regards,

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 20:03:40 +0000

David and all,

Regards,

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:51:18 -0800

Jeff,

[corroboration of your 30 "implementations"]
> of..I believe that those were sent to the IETF

Not to the IETF (this thread has generated enough noise as is), to me. 
Should I receive _any_ credible responses, I'll be happy to summarize.

>> I suspect the root nameserver operators (in particular)

Oh, really?  We'll, I'll ask 'em for their input.
 
> BINDPlus is not free however, and we stand behind our product,
> with service contracts.

Funny, despite the fact that BIND is free, ISC also stands behind our
products with service contracts (anyone interested in such should
contact me directly) and what's more, our source code is openly
available -- ISC has been "open source" long before the media buzzword
was invented.  I personally would feel more confident with peer reviewed
code when building critical core services.

> may not agree with their practices is their own affair.

The IETF censors no one that I'm aware of.

> so a wonder if your claim that I am "Censored" From the IETF is factual).

I did not claim you were censored from the IETF, rather that you are on
the Havard Alvestrand's ietf+censored list.  Havard's list is not a part
of the IETF, but rather a private list (albeit with numerous long time
IETF participants) that filters the IETF list of noise.

>I suggest considering a neutral lab facility

How about meeting at the IETF in Orlando?  I'm sure we'll have
sufficient bandwidth to reach both our testing facilities remotely.

> given me a very long time ago.

Please re-read the question I posed.

> one is obviously more definitive than the other.

You say you have a masters in CS and Engineering?

Regards,
-drc

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:51:18 -0800

Jeff,

 

Regards,
-drc

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 01:45:20 +0000

David and all,

> Should I receive _any_ credible responses, I'll be happy to summarize.

  Well you do that David.

> Oh, really?  We'll, I'll ask 'em for their input.

  good.

> code when building critical core services.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their own PERSONAL feelings in theseimportant
matters.  However others mileage may indeed vary, as we have seen
in the past several months in particular.  Of course there is something to be said
for "Peer reviewed code", however you determine the definition of Peer, of course.
I personally would prefer code that has been rigoursly tested in extremely
adverse conditions from INDEPENDENT review processes myself.  Lends
a better flavor for a less self aggrandizing evaluation, we believe.

> The IETF censors no one that I'm aware of.

  Make up you mind David.  Either it does or it doesn't in YOUR opinion.You claimed
in you last post on this thread that I and others ARE Censored.
PLease consider a review of you reading comprehension skills on your
next comprehensive evaluation.  Just a friendly suggestion.  >;)

Reference, To Wit:
Subject:
             Re: About Bind
        Date:  Mon, 16 Nov 1998 05:37:08 -0800
       From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
 Organization: Internet Software Consortium
         To: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
         CC: IETF ORG <[email-masked]>
  References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4

Excerpt: ' It would seem few people believe you
nor do they consider your comments of any more significance than line
noise (in fact, you've just joined Allisat, Fleming, and Denninger on
the 'discard' list at ietf+censored)."

> sufficient bandwidth to reach both our testing facilities remotely.

Possibility.  What sort of bandwidth do they have available?

> Please re-read the question I posed.

  I did, I stand by my previous statement, which you so improperlysniped, so I will
re-add for clarity here (Below)

 And as I said several additional times the term (Bindles) which MD
discribes, is a mis-type on my part.  Nothing more.  Michael Dillon (MD),
has a flair for overstatement and fantasy.

> You say you have a masters in CS and Engineering?

  Yes, sure do, as well as a minor in Math, thank you.  >;)

 Regards,

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 01:45:20 +0000

David and all,

  Well you do that David.

  good.

Reference, To Wit:
Subject:
             Re: About Bind

 Regards,