Subject: Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:48:40 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>

    > Frankly, it strikes me as somewhat odd that a body acting as a
    > standards-setting organization with public impact might allow any
    > technical decision on its specifications to be driven by people
    > operating under a cloak of anonymity. Expressing an anonymous
    > [criticism]? No problem. Influencing determination of a consensus with
    > public impact? That should not be allowed, IMO.

Excellent point.

	Noel
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:57:46 -0700

>     > public impact? That should not be allowed, IMO.
So I've never met you, Noel. And I certainly don't have any reason to
believe that this email I'm responding to wasn't forged. How do I know
that you're not a dog?

       Mike

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:02:46 -0400

> believe that this email I'm responding to wasn't forged. How do I know

Reputation system.

Melinda

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:56:37 -0400

>>  believe that this email I'm responding to wasn't forged. How do I know

Where I lose interest in this conversation is when I ask "what does 
it matter who made the point?"

Everyone now and then makes good points and lousy points.  If you 
never make bad points, you aren't trying hard enough.  (Borrowing a 
phrase from a colleague nearing retirement about the "No Fear" logos 
on the backs of trucks - "No Fear?  Kids today just don't try hard 
enough.")

When I come across email that doesn't make sense, I ignore it if it's 
not worth a reply.  Delete.  That's simple to do.  Yes, I do note a 
higher incidence of worthless points sourced from particular email 
addresses but it's the point that counts, not the source.

I shudder to think that a reputation system is what the IETF relies 
upon, especially since we don't authenticate those posting messages. 
Engineering isn't about what pundits think.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Never confuse activity with progress.  Activity pays more.
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:18:44 -0400

> it matter who made the point?"

I suppose that's the ideal.  We know some voices carry more
weight and some carry less, but I think what's actually under
discussion is process abuses, not the resoluation of technical
differences.  

Thinking not-that-far-back to the arrival of the FSF-driven
hordes trying to stop publication of the TLS authorization
document, I think the IETF pretty much blew them off, which was
the right thing to do under the circumstances.  If it didn't
matter who was making the point I'm not sure that would have
happened (and I think if it had been only one or two of them I'm
not sure that would have happened, either).

These days I'm inclined to think that the IETF would be able
to solve a good number of these problems by becoming a
membership organization.  I realize that's anathema to nearly
everybody and is unlikely to happen, but I'm not sure I see
problems like this being solved otherwise.

Melinda

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:46:19 -0700

Michael Thomas wrote:
| Noel Chiappa wrote:
|>     > From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
|>
|>     > Frankly, it strikes me as somewhat odd that a body acting as a
|>     > standards-setting organization with public impact might allow any
|>     > technical decision on its specifications to be driven by people
|>     > operating under a cloak of anonymity. Expressing an anonymous
|>     > [criticism]? No problem. Influencing determination of a
consensus with
|>     > public impact? That should not be allowed, IMO.
|>
|> Excellent point.
|>
|>
| So I've never met you, Noel. And I certainly don't have any reason to
| believe that this email I'm responding to wasn't forged. How do I know
| that you're not a dog?

You find a third party known to you can vouch for the existence of Noel,
and then you get noel to admit that he sent the message.

|        Mike
| _______________________________________________
| IETF mailing list
| [email-masked]
| https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:23:42 -0400

>discussion is process abuses, not the resoluation of technical

Okay, that's different from what I was assuming the topic was about - 
there are places where the source matters.  But in those instances it 
shouldn't be the voices that carry more or less weight, but the 
position (not person) speaking the voice.

I do cringe when anyone says "not wearing any hats" - especially when 
I don't know what hat they might be wearing at any given time.  I 
know it's a time-honed (not honored) tradition in the IETF but I 
don't think it's a good thing.  Taking off hats, that is.

Anonymously expressing your opinion is fine but you have to accept 
that the opinion could fall on deaf ears.  Real actions should be 
tied back to an accountable identity or else we just have mob rule.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:46:27 +0100

> not sure that would have happened, either).

Some of those posts made relevant points, and came from people who are
responsible for parts of the Internet.  If indeed the IETF blew them
off, which I sincerely hope is not what will happen to that draft (the
status tracker hasn't changed status since before then), I think the
IETF will lose credibility in the wider community.

I'd prefer an IETF that serves the larger community over one that caters
only to the few frequent contributors.

/Simon

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:56:05 -0700

> only to the few frequent contributors.

I'd prefer an IETF that can get things done in a timely manner.

Regards,
-drc

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:36:20 -0400

> don't think it's a good thing.  Taking off hats, that is.

When I've used that phrase, it's almost always meant "not wearning any
IETF hats".  That is, this is my own personal opinion, to be reviewed
on its own merits, and not based on any role-based authority I might
have as document editor or working group chair to determine consensus.

I've most commonly heard it from Area Directors, who want to make it
clear that this is their own personal preference, and not something
which should be interpreted by the working group as, "Make this change
or when it comes up before the IESG I'll vote DISCUSS and your
standard will never progress!  Bwa-hah-hah-hah!"  :-)

Of course, very often an AD is very much an technical expert, and
their opinion will carry much more weight than someone random that no
one knows.  And most AD's would never try to impose their will using
the DISCUSS blunt instrument unless there's something very badly
wrong.  But sometimes folks are too easily over-awed by titles, so it
can be useful for people to reinforce that he's disclaiming any
role-based authority when making a comment.

Regards,

							- Ted

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:43:11 -0700

Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson dot org> wrote:

>> Thinking not-that-far-back to the arrival of the FSF-driven hordes 
>> trying to stop publication of the TLS authorization document, I think 
>> the IETF pretty much blew them off, which was the right thing to do 
>> under the circumstances.
>

The main effect of that letter-writing campaign was that 98% of the 
points, relevant and not, were restated over and over again.  I was 
lurking at that time (as now) and my recollection was that the IETF 
listened to the relevant points the first couple of times, and blew off 
the restatements.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

---

From: Bert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:24:42 +0100

On Mar 25, 2008, at 4:57 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> How do I know that you're not a dog?

or a puppet... A small fellow with a red nose, a yellow complexion,  
and a miserable hairdo was at some point even appointed to the IAB !?!

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg41460.html

:-)

--- Bert
     http://bert.secret-wg.org/
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:25:03 +0100

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:24:42AM +0100,
 Bert <[email-masked]> wrote 

> and a miserable hairdo was at some point even appointed to the IAB !?!

It's easy to prove this fellow does not exist:

1) The PGP signature is invalid

2) He does not accept email:

<[email-masked]>: host mx.secret-wg.org[213.154.224.48] said: 554 5.7.1
    Service unavailable; Client host [192.134.4.11] blocked using          
    relays.ordb.org; ordb.org was shut down on December 18, 2006. Please remove
    from your mailserver. (in reply to RCPT TO command)

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:39:15 -0400

--On Wednesday, 26 March, 2008 14:25 +0100 Stephane Bortzmeyer
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> or a puppet... A small fellow with a red nose, a yellow
>> complexion,   and a miserable hairdo was at some point even
>> appointed to the IAB !?!
> 
>...
 
It is also easy to prove that he does exist, if one is not picky
about issues of genus and species:

(i) Many people who are active in the IETF have met him and
could vouch for that fact.

(ii) There are several photograph galleries that contain
pictures of this individual in the presence of, and sometimes in
intimate contact with, various figures who are well-known around
the IETF.  Some of galleries are maintained by people who are
part of, and well-known to, the IETF community and who can
testify to the authenticity of the photographs.

(iii) The individual in question has been observed at multiple
IETF activities and events in recent years.

I would think that even a fraction of that much evidence that
someone was a distinct individual, coupled with even rudimentary
evidence that the individual involved was able to initiate and
send his or her own email, would be more than sufficient to
settle any discussion of this type.

    john