Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Dean Anderson]

As one of the 2 PR-action'ed persons, let me respond to these 
assertions.

I was subject of a PR-Action in fall of 2005 because I did three things:

1) I asked for honesty in the sources of claims in the controverial 
spamops document.  The discredited source was SORBS, which falsely 
claims address blocks used by Av8 Internet (130.105/16 and 198.3.136/21) 
are hijacked. They have done this since 2003, and know of the mistake. 
SORBS is connected to Paul Vixie and Dave Rand.

2) I asserted that RFC 3979 applied to DNS drafts, which had not made
the proper disclosures required under RFC3979. Steven Bellovin (then
chair of the IPR Working Group falsely stated that RFC3979 wasn't the
policy of the IETF. ISOC Atty Contreras later refuted Bellovin's false
claim. I was right. The drafts have not made the proper disclosures.  
This activity is similar to the deception by Russ Housley with the
TLS-AUTHZ document. (Housley also voted on my PR-Action)

3) I attempted to discuss problems with Stateful Anycast Stability on
DNSOP. Even though DNSOP was the proper forum for this discussion, I was
bluntly told to drop the subject by then Area Director David Kessens.  
Kessens was associated with Paul Vixie and ISC through several
connections. Vixie was advocating Anycast, and stood to lose money if
problems were revealed. Since then, experimental data confirms the 
problems with Stateful Anycast.


I've been vindicated on all three issues of the PR-Action. There was no 
misconduct on my part.


Since then, I have been banned from the GROW, IPR, and DNSEXT Working 
Groups:

-- I was banned from GROW for opposing draft-ietf-grow-anycast (Kessens)  
that implied that stateful anycast was stable, and stated that per
packet load balancing (PPLB) was pathological.  My opposition was steam
rolled. As Sam Hartman wrote in his evaluation record:

  I believe that the IESG did not follow a process consistent with how
  we handle other documents and that the divergences from our normal
  process created an unacceptably closed process.  As such, I am
  abstaining on this document as I cannot support its publication under
  the process that was used.

  The area director described the process used as hard ball.  He said
  that because of the history of the document he was pushing back
  against changes both from the IESG and late last call comments more so
  than usual.  By history, I suspect that he meant both the fact that
  this document has already been subject to an appeal and the fact that
  the document has been under development for a long time.  I think that
  the area director chose to play hard enough ball that the process can
  no longer be considered open and that the IESG erred in supporting
  this process and approving the document.

-- I was banned from IPR Working group. I am president of the LPF, an
anti-patent organization founded by Richard Stallman. The LPF represents
the views of many GNU supporters and many famous people in computer
science.  I was banned for working to fix the problems that enabled Russ
Housley to deceive the IETF on IPR disclosure, yet receive no penalty.

-- I was banned from the DNSEXT Working Group (namedroppers) which I
have participated in since about 1990.  I was banned because I opposed
the author assigned to a revived axfr-clarify draft. This draft was
involved in a prior scam by Paul Vixie et al 'clarifying' the AXFR
protocol in 2002.  The draft proponents claimed the draft had no wire
protocol changes. However, it was discovered by Dr. Bernstein that the
draft did include protocol changes. It was also discovered that BIND had
already implemented changed protocol with detection for the old
protocol. This scam was discovered and originally opposed by Dr. Dan
Bernstein, the author of a major DNS server implementation. In 2002,
Bernstein's email was blocked, subjected to forged unsubscriptions, etc.  
The draft was dead until recently, when Vixie and affiliates revived the
document.  I objected to assigning the document to authors affiliated
with the previous abuse of Bernstein.


None of these represent any sort of obstruction to legitimate work.

Paul Vixie seems to be the center of the abuse against me, using his
resources at NANOG, ISOC, and ARIN, and SORBS to interfere with my
business and to promote his own economic interests. Others also have
economic motives to harm me (e.g. Housley to prevent his being held
accountable for patent disclosure violations.)

These efforts at improper and unjustifiable censorship are presently the
subject of legal contacts between my lawyer and their lawyers. These
efforts to censor persons for economic purposes contradict the bylaws
and charters of each of the organizations, and violate US laws.  It will
not stand. SORBS operator Matthew Sullivan has stated his intent to
cause AV8 Internet to spend money to sue people who would lose but have
no money to pay damages.

But I do agree that the efforts at censorship are indeed a waste of
time.  

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:45:19AM -0700,
 Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 
 a message of 12 lines which said:

 Does the IETF have a policy regarding misrepresented identities?

For instance, I claim that the person mentioned in section 10 of RFC
5242 may be actually the same person who is the target of a PR-action,
with just a small modification of his name. If this is true, he cannot
post on IETF mailing lists and should be banned of Acknowledgments
sections as well!


___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Frank Ellermann]

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

 If this is true, he cannot post on IETF mailing lists and
 should be banned of Acknowledgments sections as well!

The IESG Note in RFC 5242 is perfectly clear, with a length
of 11 lines it reaches a third of the IESG Note size used
in RFCs 4405, 4407, 4407, and 4408.  For a shorter IESG Note
I'd support an appeal or recall petition, but 11 lines ought
to be good enough for everybody.  

It would be completely unjustfied to count empty lines, and
then claim that 12 of 38 is less than a third, even if the
38 lines don't include a page header added by the RFC-editor
without consent of the IESG, let alone any IETF Last Call.

 Frank

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Brian E Carpenter]

On 2008-04-02 09:41, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
 On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:45:19AM -0700,
  Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 
  a message of 12 lines which said:
 
 Does the IETF have a policy regarding misrepresented identities?
 
 For instance, I claim that the person mentioned in section 10 of RFC
 5242 may be actually the same person who is the target of a PR-action,
 with just a small modification of his name. If this is true, he cannot
 post on IETF mailing lists and should be banned of Acknowledgments
 sections as well!

Do you believe that 'f' is isomorfic with 'ph'?

   Brian
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

Stephane Bortzmeyer skrev:
 On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:45:19AM -0700,
  Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 
  a message of 12 lines which said:

   
 Does the IETF have a policy regarding misrepresented identities?
 

 For instance, I claim that the person mentioned in section 10 of RFC
 5242 may be actually the same person who is the target of a PR-action,
 with just a small modification of his name. If this is true, he cannot
 post on IETF mailing lists and should be banned of Acknowledgments
 sections as well!
No, this needs an RFC 3683 update - the RFC mentions acknowledgements 
only in the title of its acknowledgements section; steps need to be 
taken at once to rectify this severely overlooked issue.

We can't have people mounting denial of service attacks against the IETF 
by being mentioned in acknowledgements section - that would be Just Too 
Impolite!

 Harald

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[John C Klensin]

--On Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:09 AM +0200 Harald Tveit 
Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 For instance, I claim that the person mentioned in section 10
 of RFC 5242 may be actually the same person who is the target
 of a PR-action, with just a small modification of his name.
 If this is true, he cannot post on IETF mailing lists and
 should be banned of Acknowledgments sections as well!
 No, this needs an RFC 3683 update - the RFC mentions
 acknowledgements  only in the title of its acknowledgements
 section; steps need to be  taken at once to rectify this
 severely overlooked issue.

 We can't have people mounting denial of service attacks
 against the IETF  by being mentioned in acknowledgements
 section - that would be Just Too  Impolite!

Of course, this would contradict the requirements of various 
other documents that the acknowledgements contain a full 
description of everyone who contributed substantively.  So those 
documents would all need to be updated to make appropriate 
exceptions.

   john




___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Doug Ewell]

Theodore Tso tytso at MIT dot EDU wrote:

 A valid technical concern is easy to deal with.  If they provide an
 idea, I suspect a cautious working group chair might insist on knowing
 their real name and company affiliation, since there have been past
 examples where companies have tried to inject patented technologies
 into a standards specification.

I suppose a few personal notes might be in order regarding company 
affiliation, since I've served as editor for both RFC 4645 and 
draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis, both products of the LTRU Working Group that 
started this thread, and both under the title Consultant instead of a 
company or other organizational affiliation.

There are a couple of reasons.  One is that my company, which had 
apparently been embarrassed by employees posting personal opinions on an 
industry message board in a way which made them sound like official 
company positions, instituted a set of Internet and Electronic 
Communications Guidelines some years ago which prohibits employees from 
stating their [company] affiliation over the Internet unless required 
as part of their job description.  This went way too far in my 
opinion -- stating that you work for XYZ Company is quite different from 
stating that you represent the official position of XYZ Company -- but 
it is the approved policy, it allows for termination in the event of 
violation, and we all signed it.

The other reason is that three years ago, there was an attempt by --  
surprise! -- JFC Morfin to contact the professional employer of one of 
the LTRU participants and single him out for corporate disciplinary 
action, in retaliation for his support of a PR-action against Morfin. 
Together with the Internet and Electronic Communications Guidelines, 
this hostile and unprofessional action further convinced me that it was 
not in my best interests to disclose my employer in documents published 
on the Internet, and especially not in an RFC where the text:

D. Ewell, Ed.
XYZ Company

might present the impression, rightly or wrongly, of company sponsorship 
or representation.

Next week I start work for a new employer, and I hope they will have a 
more enlightened attitude toward employees stating their [company] 
affiliation over the Internet and will understand that stating one's 
affiliation in an IETF document is a matter of author identification, 
not corporate sponsorship.

In passing, I will restate that my involvement with the LTRU has always 
been individual in nature, and has never been sponsored or sanctioned by 
any commercial interest nor driven by any corporate goal, although I 
believe the work may be of value to any entity (corporate or otherwise) 
concerned with the identification of linguistic content.

--
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

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[John C Klensin]

--On Sunday, March 30, 2008 9:00 PM -0700 Doug Ewell 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Theodore Tso tytso at MIT dot EDU wrote:

 A valid technical concern is easy to deal with.  If they
 provide an idea, I suspect a cautious working group chair
 might insist on knowing their real name and company
 affiliation, since there have been past examples where
 companies have tried to inject patented technologies into a
 standards specification.

 I suppose a few personal notes might be in order regarding
 company  affiliation, since I've served as editor for both
 RFC 4645 and  draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis, both products of the
 LTRU Working Group that  started this thread, and both under
 the title Consultant instead of a  company or other
 organizational affiliation.

 There are a couple of reasons.  One is that my company, which
 had  apparently been embarrassed by employees posting personal
 opinions on an  industry message board in a way which made
 them sound like official  company positions, instituted a set
 of Internet and Electronic  Communications Guidelines some
 years ago which prohibits employees from  stating their
 [company] affiliation over the Internet unless required  as
 part of their job description.
...

Doug,

Even this stringent a rule would presumably not prevent you from 
disclosing your affiliation to a WG Chair or the Secretariat if 
you were asked a specific question in order to help authenticate 
you.  If it is possible to read our rules to prevent the 
entities who might legitimately ask you for that information 
from keeping it confidential if that were reasonably required, 
then those rules may need clarification or tweaking.

But there is a huge difference between stating/ advertising a 
company affiliation in a mailing list email address or at the 
top of an RFC and responding to the sort of query that I think 
Ted's note suggests.

john

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Stephan Wenger]

Hi Simon,
the case I was thinking about was this one:
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20070323094639
964

Stephan


On 3/25/08 3:33 PM, Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 [...]
 If we learned that the anonymous posting actually came from person was
 affiliated with the IPR holder, then there is legal recourse.  My
 point is that by avoiding anonymous posting, the likelihood of such
 abuse is significantly reduced.
 
 I think the point would be valid if there were significant abuse today.
 
 
 I don't know what would qualify as significant here, but there has been at
 least one rather high profile antitrust case in the recent history
 (semiconductor industry), in which a situation similar to the one we are
 discussing has played a role.
 
 If the account at
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits
 
 is to be trusted, I can't find many similarities with the situation we
 are discussing here.  Could you clarify how anonymous contributions
 played a role in your example?
 
 /Simon
 


___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Simon Josefsson]

Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Noel Chiappa wrote:

 if our IP rules, which I haven't looked at recently, already
 said that, my apologies, and don't kick me too hard! :-)

 *KICK* ;-)  Posted yesterday:

Hm, how does those rules meet any of the requirements Noel had?

/Simon

 | The IESG has received a request from the Intellectual Property
 | Rights WG (ipr) to consider the following document:

 | - 'Rights Contributors provide to the IETF Trust '
 |   draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-08.txt as a BCP

 | The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
 | solicits final comments on this action.  Please send substantive
 | comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2008-04-07.
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Simon Josefsson]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa) writes:

  From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  If someone participates under a pseudonym with the objective of
  inserting patented technology and anyone finds out they are in big
  trouble. Much worse than any prior case.

 We should write in our rules that anyone who contributes technology to any
 IETF activity which they know to be either a) patented, b) the subject of a
 filing, or c) the subject of a planned future filing, *without disclosing said
 patent status* to the WG/I*, either:

Could we get away with making the NOTE WELL more visible?

For example, require that everyone (including any pseudonymous
contributors) who submit an internet-draft needs to ACK that they have
read and understood the NOTE WELL?

/Simon
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Simon Josefsson]

Thanks for clarifying, given the lack of details I jumped to
conclusions.  Still, I don't see how anonymous contributions were
involved?

/Simon

Stephan Wenger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Hi Simon,
 the case I was thinking about was this one:
 http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20070323094639
 964

 Stephan


 On 3/25/08 3:33 PM, Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 [...]
 If we learned that the anonymous posting actually came from person was
 affiliated with the IPR holder, then there is legal recourse.  My
 point is that by avoiding anonymous posting, the likelihood of such
 abuse is significantly reduced.
 
 I think the point would be valid if there were significant abuse today.
 
 
 I don't know what would qualify as significant here, but there has been at
 least one rather high profile antitrust case in the recent history
 (semiconductor industry), in which a situation similar to the one we are
 discussing has played a role.
 
 If the account at
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits
 
 is to be trusted, I can't find many similarities with the situation we
 are discussing here.  Could you clarify how anonymous contributions
 played a role in your example?
 
 /Simon
 
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Bert]

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/


PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:24:42AM +0100,
 Bert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 
 a message of 55 lines which said:

 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's easy to prove this fellow does not exist:

1) The PGP signature is invalid

2) He does not accept email:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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)

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action.

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On Wednesday, March 26, 2008 00:24:57 +0100 LB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 So it seems to me that the current debate, which I do not have much
 time to spend and who is in a language that I do not master, has two
 other goals.

 - Discredit these Drafts in case they would allow the internet to work
 better.
 - Protect all the commercial interests by wanting paying
 members. As if IETF was afraid that the non-profit lead users may join.

c'mon neihter JFC nor LB has ever offered a draft, or even outlined a 
comprehensible strategy.

One person that the IETF trusts saying that he's verified that JFC and 
LB are distinct persons would end this debate forever. Posting anonymous 
messages to the list proclaiming that they're different accomplishes 
exactly nothing.

Put up or shut up.

 Harald

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-08.txt as a BCP (was: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action)

[Frank Ellermann]

Simon Josefsson wrote:

 *KICK* ;-)  Posted yesterday:

 Hm, how does those rules meet any of the requirements Noel had?

Hardly, but now is a good time to discuss the proposed rules,
where they don't do what folks consider as required.  I think
there are enough interesting details in the incoming I-D
that adding missing rules about anon contributors would be
overkill.

 Frank

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[John C Klensin]

--On Wednesday, 26 March, 2008 14:25 +0100 Stephane Bortzmeyer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:24:42AM +0100,
  Bert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 
  a message of 55 lines which said:
 
 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's easy to prove this fellow does not exist:
 
 1) The PGP signature is invalid
 
 2) He does not accept email:
...
 
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

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Hadriel Kaplan]

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
 Michael Thomas

   Mike, could be a dog too

I'm not sure what you people have against canines - if a dog can email in 
cohesive comments on a draft or working group topic, I say we should listen!  ;)

The issue here is not one of identity for email/discussion, but rather one of 
identity for consensus declaration.  In other words, I don't see anything wrong 
with letting anonymous/random beings communicate ideas to the IETF through 
email or jabber or whatever.  What gets tricky is a WG chair basing consensus 
or interest on the email list traffic.  The problem is how consensus is 
determined, not how we identify contributors.

In the IEEE 802 groups, they have (or used to when I went) a policy of anyone 
can comment, but you have to physically go to a certain number of meetings per 
year, and continue doing so, to be counted as an actual voting member. (but 
anyone from anywhere could become such a member if they participated)  That 
worked pretty well, because often times they still went with consensus but only 
pulled out the voting members only policy when something could not be so 
resolved.  I realize that physically going to IETF meetings is not a model we 
want, but for people who don't go, we could require vetting of identity to get 
voting status.

-hadriel
p.s. And I for one welcome our new dog overlords.  I'd like to remind them that 
as a former cat-owner, I can be helpful in rounding up cats to toil in their 
dog pounds.

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action.

[Randy Presuhn]

Hi -

 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: LB [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 6:29 AM
 Subject: Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action.
...
 c'mon neihter JFC nor LB has ever offered a draft,

JFTR https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-mltf-jfcm-cctags/

 or even outlined a 
 comprehensible strategy.
...

No comment.

Randy

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 05:08:31AM +0100,
 Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 
 a message of 28 lines which said:

 we had this exact problem with the many identities of Jeff
 Williams; he had enough pseudo-personalities on the list that he
 would sometimes claim to have a majority, jut from his own postings.

Since IETF does not vote, it is certainly not an issue here?


___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Theodore Tso]

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 08:53:15AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
 On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 05:08:31AM +0100,
  Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 
  a message of 28 lines which said:
 
  we had this exact problem with the many identities of Jeff
  Williams; he had enough pseudo-personalities on the list that he
  would sometimes claim to have a majority, jut from his own postings.
 
 Since IETF does not vote, it is certainly not an issue here?

Well, it can be an issue in terms of determining rough consensus.
Suppose you have 100 sock puppets all with gmail or hotmail accounts,
all claiming that some approach which all of the key technologists and
experts in the field and RFC authors have rejected, is really the
right way to go.  We can do straw polls in face to face meetings, but
in theory, all decisions are supposed to be confirmed on the mailing
list.  

Suppose 100 (presumed) sock puppets who all just happen to have the
same fracturered logic and writing styles as JFC show up on LTRU and
claim that they are driving consensus.  RFC 3683 evasion aside, it
could certainly cause cause problems for a working group chair who is
trying to determine consensus, such that said chair might want to
confirm whether or not 100 posters to the mailing list, all with
pseudonyms derived from the name of of French pioneers/heros, were in
fact distinct people.

After all, they could all argue that the nonsense they are spouting is
in fact deep received wisdom, and it's a minority of the working group
who don't understand their reasoning, and so therefore the positions
of their Great Leader JFC, is in fact rough consensus.   :-)

- Ted
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Frank Ellermann]

Theodore Tso wrote:
 
 Suppose you have 100 sock puppets all with gmail or hotmail accounts

Wait a moment, I don't know about hotmail accounts, but for gmail
it is possible to have corresponding google pages, a profile, a
jabber account, etc., and the task to check how plausible this is
is not harder than for many similar accounts at other providers.

If you consider it as likely that an entity claiming to be Frank
Ellermann exists and created some http://purl.net/xyzzy pages,
then you'd find that this entity redirected all rev=made links
plus a contact link on http://purl.net/xyzzy/privacy.htm to
the Reply-To gmail address of this article.  You'd also find that
http://hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz.googlepages.com/index.html
(derived from the horrible local part) confirms that theory.

It's also possible to submit mails using SMTP or rather RFC 4409
with Gmail accounts, in that case you'd see a normal source IP
in the header, not the anonymous Web mail IP.  FWIW, it is of
course no rocket science to arrange an unsuspicious source IP.

 the positions of their Great Leader JFC, is in fact rough
 consensus.   :-)

Yes, but faking a plausible legend would be hard work, and it is
tough luck when other folks simply challenge a missing legend:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ltru/9269/match=jfc+wrote
  
 Frank

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Spencer Dawkins]

I've been carefully not posting in this thread for a while, but can't 
control myself today. (So I'm not particularly arguing with Ted's points, 
his e-mail is just the the latest e-mail in the thread)

My apologies in advance.

As Ted said, in theory, all decisions are supposed to be confirmed on the 
mailing list, but I haven't seen anyone point out the reason why - because 
we also think it's important to have very few barriers to participation in 
the IETF, so we don't require attendance at any face-to-face meeting, ever.

So I'm not sure how we verify identities when anyone we question can just 
post from an e-mail account at an ISP in Tierra del Fuego, and say the next 
time you're in the tip of South America, come by and verify my identity.

Harald's algorithm (must prove that you exist to SOMEbody) might be the 
best alternative available, but it does back away from anybody, anywhere 
can participate.

We're not good at writing process text, and I would especially appreciate it 
if whatever mechanism we finally approve doesn't require participants to 
post under their legal name - I do not; I don't use my first name, and 
Spencer is my middle name.

So my suggestion is that the community spend a little more time trying to 
figure out

o how widespread, and how frequent, a problem this is,

o how much damage Spencer and 100 sock puppets can actually cause,

o whether this damage is important enough to justify IESG time fixing the 
situation, and finally

o how much MORE damage Spencer and 100 sock puppets can cause than 
Spencer and 100 meat puppets[1] can cause.

I'm guessing that people who would be offended by Spencer and 100 invisible 
friends would react the same way if

o I hired 100 unemployed Bear Sterns executives to post Spencer is right, 
you should do X on the mailing list, or if

o I asked 100 friends to do the same thing from their work e-mail addresses, 
or if

o I go to another engineering society and ask 100 of THEM to do the same 
thing from their work e-mail addresses (and we've already had to deal with 
this, most recently with a letter-writing campaign explaining to us that we 
must not approve standards with patented technology)

... but at some level, if you're going to prevent DoS attacks from sock 
puppets, you'll need to be prepared to do the same thing when meat puppets 
attack.

The IETF is still a meritocracy, not a democracy. Bad ideas are still bad 
ideas, even if lots of people have them. Binary numbering still uses two 
values (zero and one), no matter how many drafts say something else.

Working group chairs have two responsibilities - to be fair, and to make 
progress. When these responsibilities collide, it's not going to be pretty, 
but Russ's point - we actually do know how to resolve conflicts in the 
IETF - is critical, because the alternative is that work just stops.

Sometimes we just need to make a decision and move on. If you were right, 
but couldn't convince the WG chair(s), AD, IESG or IAB that you were right, 
and couldn't convince enough people to sign a recall petition - well, next 
time, do a better job of convincing convincing people.

IMO, of course.

Spencer, who should probably be posting as Sanson...

[1] I mean real people, of course.

  we had this exact problem with the many identities of Jeff
  Williams; he had enough pseudo-personalities on the list that he
  would sometimes claim to have a majority, jut from his own postings.

 Since IETF does not vote, it is certainly not an issue here?

 Well, it can be an issue in terms of determining rough consensus.
 Suppose you have 100 sock puppets all with gmail or hotmail accounts,
 all claiming that some approach which all of the key technologists and
 experts in the field and RFC authors have rejected, is really the
 right way to go.  We can do straw polls in face to face meetings, but
 in theory, all decisions are supposed to be confirmed on the mailing
 list.

 Suppose 100 (presumed) sock puppets who all just happen to have the
 same fracturered logic and writing styles as JFC show up on LTRU and
 claim that they are driving consensus.  RFC 3683 evasion aside, it
 could certainly cause cause problems for a working group chair who is
 trying to determine consensus, such that said chair might want to
 confirm whether or not 100 posters to the mailing list, all with
 pseudonyms derived from the name of of French pioneers/heros, were in
 fact distinct people.

 After all, they could all argue that the nonsense they are spouting is
 in fact deep received wisdom, and it's a minority of the working group
 who don't understand their reasoning, and so therefore the positions
 of their Great Leader JFC, is in fact rough consensus.   :-) 


___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Russ Housley]

  we had this exact problem with the many identities of Jeff
  Williams; he had enough pseudo-personalities on the list that he
  would sometimes claim to have a majority, jut from his own postings.

Since IETF does not vote, it is certainly not an issue here?

This is not totally true.  A WG Chair or Area Director cannot judge 
rough consensus if they are unsure if the portion of the population 
that is representing a dissenting view is one person or many 
different people.  This is especially true when there are a large 
number of silent observers.

Russ

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Theodore Tso]

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 09:40:38AM -0500, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
 As Ted said, in theory, all decisions are supposed to be confirmed on the 
 mailing list, but I haven't seen anyone point out the reason why - because 
 we also think it's important to have very few barriers to participation in 
 the IETF, so we don't require attendance at any face-to-face meeting, ever.
 
 So I'm not sure how we verify identities when anyone we question can just 
 post from an e-mail account at an ISP in Tierra del Fuego, and say the next 
 time you're in the tip of South America, come by and verify my identity.

Well, usually someone who says, I think you should do foo, follows
it up with, because of bar, and while the alternate choice has
upside quux, I believe the engineering tradeoff is such that bar
is far more important than quux.  So usually it doesn't matter
whether someone is posting from Sunnyvale or McMurdo Station.  So
often, in practice, it doesn't matter.

So I think I would certainly grant your argument that most of the time
it doesn't matter, which is probably why we haven't spent a lot of
time trying to come up with detailed procedures for how to deal with
the situation.  I certainly think an ad hoc approach such as what the
LTRU wg co-chairs chose, with consultation with their AD, was the
right way to go, and if LB, whoever he is, wants to challenge their
procedure, let him go up the appeal chain.

 The IETF is still a meritocracy, not a democracy. Bad ideas are still bad 
 ideas, even if lots of people have them. Binary numbering still uses two 
 values (zero and one), no matter how many drafts say something else.
 
 Working group chairs have two responsibilities - to be fair, and to make 
 progress. When these responsibilities collide, it's not going to be pretty, 
 but Russ's point - we actually do know how to resolve conflicts in the 
 IETF - is critical, because the alternative is that work just stops.
 
 Sometimes we just need to make a decision and move on. If you were right, 
 but couldn't convince the WG chair(s), AD, IESG or IAB that you were right, 
 and couldn't convince enough people to sign a recall petition - well, next 
 time, do a better job of convincing convincing people.

No argument here.  In fact, I'd argue that the justification *for* PR
actions is to make progress, when someone who doesn't understand that
they've lost a particular battle by not being a part of the rough
consensus can't let ago, and move on

- Ted
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[John Levine]

o how widespread, and how frequent, a problem this is,

In terms of the number of people, it's tiny.  I can only think of
three incorrigibly abusive people that bother the IETF, and even if I
polled everyone here to name candidates, I doubt that I'd run out of
fingers.

On the other hand, the amount of time that they waste is enormous,
because they abuse processes designed to deal with people whose
misbehavior is ambiguous and temporary, which theirs is not.  If
someone doesn't get the hint to behave after one or two taps on the
wrist, they'll never get it and it's a waste of time to keep grinding
through processes to re-re-re-eject them.  In view of the fact that
the same people come back to annoy us year after year after year, we
really need efficient ways to make them go away permanently.  I also
observe that they tend to have, ah, characteristic writing styles that
makes it rather easy to recognize when they've grown another
personality.

So rather than inventing yet more complex rules, I would be inclined
to have a much simpler rule that says that if a group's leader sees
mail from someone who is obviously You Know Who or You Know Who Else
already subject to 3683, just block it and send out a one sentence
notice reporting it.  Then return to useful work.

Regards,
Glenn Curtiss
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Peter Constable]

From: Russ Housley...

  Since IETF does not vote, it is certainly not an issue here?

 This is not totally true.  A WG Chair or Area Director cannot
 judge rough consensus if they are unsure if the portion of the
 population that is representing a dissenting view is one person
 or many different people.  This is especially true when there
 are a large number of silent observers.


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 voice? No problem. Influencing 
determination of a consensus with public impact? That should not be allowed, 
IMO.


Peter Constable
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Noel Chiappa]

 From: Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 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
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Michael Thomas]

Noel Chiappa wrote:
  From: Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  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?

   Mike
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Melinda Shore]

On 3/25/08 11:57 AM, Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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?

Reputation system.

Melinda

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Russ Housley]

The PR-Action related aspects of a person using a bogus identity seem 
easy to address, perhaps using the mechanism that Harald 
suggested.  However, the implications on IPR are much harder.  In the 
IETF, posting to a maillist and speaking at a meeting are two ways of 
making contributions.  If we have the ability to speak
anonymously, how can the contributions be traced to a real person or 
company to support their IPR
warranties/licenses.

This leads me to a conclusion that we need a clear policy stating 
that communications need to be linked to the real, verifiable persons 
making them.

Many people use gmail (and the like) email accounts without any 
attempt to hide their identity.  In fact may people participate with 
more than one email address without causing any confusion.  So, I see 
the need for a lightweight process to validate an identity whenever 
there is a suspected abuse.

Russ

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Noel Chiappa]

 From: Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 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.

(Responding to the point of your message, rather than the actual words... :-)

I think there are two parts to the problem: the first is does this electronic
identity correspond to a real person, and how can that electronic identity
securely post messages. (I assume that was your point, yes?)

As to the first, something like a PGPmail web of trust would work. E.g. you've
never met me, but you probably have met Dino or TLi, and they have met me, and
can confirm (in both directions) that we're real.

As to the second, well, basic email isn't terribly secure (alas); however,
there are a number of heuristics. First, for any list I'm on, I will
certainly notice if a fake jnc starts posting! And you can look at the
Received-from: headers to make sure the email came from where it says it came
from. And it's easy enough to track me down and call me on the phone (again,
people you know can verify that the phone number is real). Etc, etc...

Noel
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Simon Josefsson]

Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 From: Russ Housley...

  Since IETF does not vote, it is certainly not an issue here?

 This is not totally true.  A WG Chair or Area Director cannot
 judge rough consensus if they are unsure if the portion of the
 population that is representing a dissenting view is one person
 or many different people.  This is especially true when there
 are a large number of silent observers.


 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 voice?
 No problem. Influencing determination of a consensus with public
 impact? That should not be allowed, IMO.

What if the pseudonymous voice raise a valid technical concern, provide
useful text for a specification, or even co-author a specification?

I think decisions should be based on technically sound arguments.
Whether someone wants to reveal their real identity is not necessarily
correlated to the same person providing useful contributions.

/Simon
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Peter Constable]

 From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

  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 voice?
  No problem. Influencing determination of a consensus with public
  impact? That should not be allowed, IMO.

 What if the pseudonymous voice raise a valid technical concern, provide
 useful text for a specification, or even co-author a specification?

That's having voice. We can be open to any voice. If a concern has valid 
technical merits, then that should be evident to others, and drive a consensus 
on its own. But the consensus can still be determined by identifiable people.


 I think decisions should be based on technically sound arguments.

Just so.

 Whether someone wants to reveal their real identity is not necessarily
 correlated to the same person providing useful contributions.

True. But neither is ability to provide useful contributions necessarily 
correlated with being counted as part of a consensus.


Peter
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Melinda Shore]

On 3/25/08 12:12 PM, Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I think decisions should be based on technically sound arguments.
 Whether someone wants to reveal their real identity is not necessarily
 correlated to the same person providing useful contributions.

In practice I don't think there's really been much of a problem
with that.  The problem in practice has been with people using
process arguments to tie up progress, and that's somewhat harder
to judge.

Melinda

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Spencer Dawkins]

Hi, Russ,

 The PR-Action related aspects of a person using a bogus identity seem
 easy to address, perhaps using the mechanism that Harald
 suggested.  However, the implications on IPR are much harder.  In the
 IETF, posting to a maillist and speaking at a meeting are two ways of
 making contributions.  If we have the ability to speak
 anonymously, how can the contributions be traced to a real person or
 company to support their IPR
 warranties/licenses.

 This leads me to a conclusion that we need a clear policy stating
 that communications need to be linked to the real, verifiable persons
 making them.

OK, this is restating the point that I first thought about replying to, but
stopped myself the first time.

What problem is anonymous posting causing, that would not also be caused by
(for example) Spencer posting a draft saying

By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79

... if I won't disclose them?

Or Spencer posting an IPR statement that my IETF Sponsor Organization
does/does not have IPR that applies to a specific draft, and would/would not
be willing to execute licenses with specific terms ...

... if none of my statements are true?

I have a small imagination, but I'm having a hard time visualizing a
solution for this problem that doesn't include the words organizational
membership. If we had that, no problem - you wouldn't accept IPR statements
from me, you'd accept them from my IETF Sponsor Organization, or at a
minumum, you'd assume that my IETF Sponsor Organization would fire me AND
sure me in court, if I misbehaved.

But we don't have organizational members, and if we did, the IETF would be a
very different place.

Could someone make some suggestions about how we would actually know that
communications are linked to real, verifiable persons making them? Ignoring
forged e-mail, etc. of course.

Spencer


___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Theodore Tso]

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 05:12:33PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
  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 voice?
  No problem. Influencing determination of a consensus with public
  impact? That should not be allowed, IMO.
 
 What if the pseudonymous voice raise a valid technical concern, provide
 useful text for a specification, or even co-author a specification?
 
 I think decisions should be based on technically sound arguments.
 Whether someone wants to reveal their real identity is not necessarily
 correlated to the same person providing useful contributions.

A valid technical concern is easy to deal with.  If they provide an
idea, I suspect a cautious working group chair might insist on knowing
their real name and company affiliation, since there have been past
examples where companies have tried to inject patented technologies
into a standards specification.  (For example, see the FTC's decision
re: Rambus[1].)

[1]  http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1161606920964

If someone is providing text or co-authoring a specification, there
are once again copyright considerations which could cause the IETF
much headaches.  If a Cisco employee were to provide text, and then
suddenly yank back copyright permission and disclaim the Note Well,
their are consequences to the engineer and to his/her employer if they
were to do so.  A contributor operating under the cloak of anonymity
can evade many of the consequences of being a bad actor.

Which once again brings us back to the question of what is the value
of letting contributors operate under a cloak of anonymity, and do the
benefits outweigh the costs.  For political speech where someone wants
to distribute the equivalent of leaflets decrying their current's
government position on say, torture in violation of the Geneva
convention, it's much easier to make the case that allowing anonymous
speech is hugely important.  In a standards organization, it's much
harder to make the argument that anonymity is really a benefit.

For example, in the current MS-OOXML controversy, anonymity would make
it impossible, or at least much more difficult, to determine whether
or not Microsoft really did pack various countries' national bodies
with their business partners, and reimbursed membership fees via
marketing considerations.  So I'm rather glad that all or most ISO
national body rules do require declaration and disclosure of legal
names and corporate affiliations.

- Ted
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Edward Lewis]

At 12:02 -0400 3/25/08, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 3/25/08 11:57 AM, Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  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?

Reputation system.

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
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Melinda Shore]

On 3/25/08 12:56 PM, Edward Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Where I lose interest in this conversation is when I ask what does
 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

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Michael Thomas]

Noel Chiappa wrote:
  From: Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  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.

 (Responding to the point of your message, rather than the actual words... :-)

 I think there are two parts to the problem: the first is does this electronic
 identity correspond to a real person, and how can that electronic identity
 securely post messages. (I assume that was your point, yes?)

 As to the first, something like a PGPmail web of trust would work. E.g. you've
 never met me, but you probably have met Dino or TLi, and they have met me, and
 can confirm (in both directions) that we're real.

 As to the second, well, basic email isn't terribly secure (alas); however,
 there are a number of heuristics. First, for any list I'm on, I will
 certainly notice if a fake jnc starts posting! And you can look at the
 Received-from: headers to make sure the email came from where it says it came
 from. And it's easy enough to track me down and call me on the phone (again,
 people you know can verify that the phone number is real). Etc, etc...
   

The point that I was trying to make is exactly that this is all rather 
squishy
as you  I'm sure agree with. Given the squishy nature of this, it seems
rather difficult to try to enforce broad authorizations (= anonymity vs. 
consensus
in this particular case). I'm not even sure I understand what 
anonymity means
in that particular context... that I can't google the email address and 
get enough
confirming evidence of non-doghood? I suspect that if we ever tried to 
codify
this sort of stricture, we'd soon wish we hadn't.

  Mike, could be a dog too
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Simon Josefsson]

Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Which once again brings us back to the question of what is the value
 of letting contributors operate under a cloak of anonymity, and do the
 benefits outweigh the costs.  For political speech where someone wants
 to distribute the equivalent of leaflets decrying their current's
 government position on say, torture in violation of the Geneva
 convention, it's much easier to make the case that allowing anonymous
 speech is hugely important.  In a standards organization, it's much
 harder to make the argument that anonymity is really a benefit.

 For example, in the current MS-OOXML controversy, anonymity would make
 it impossible, or at least much more difficult, to determine whether
 or not Microsoft really did pack various countries' national bodies
 with their business partners, and reimbursed membership fees via
 marketing considerations.  So I'm rather glad that all or most ISO
 national body rules do require declaration and disclosure of legal
 names and corporate affiliations.

I think that is interesting analogy.  I'm not at all as convinced you
are that ISO's model is better than the IETF's model here.  First, if
ISO had been acting only on the technical merits in this matter, the
proposal would be dead a long time ago.  The reason the proposal is
still around in ISO seems to be because ISO is membership-driven, and
needs to decide based on what the members vote.  I think this model
leads to quite different participators than a more open and technical
focused process.

The more I think about it, I like the IETF's pasts model better than ISO
current.  Fortunately, if the IETF becomes more like ISO, then I am
confident that there will be another organization that is similar to the
original IETF spirit.  When there is damage, route around it...

/Simon
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Joel Jaeggli]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Michael Thomas wrote:
| Noel Chiappa wrote:
|  From: Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
|  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
| IETF@ietf.org
| https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH6Tpr8AA1q7Z/VrIRAvk4AJ4g0LqMWGH0YNrAV87SV101XxExWwCeKiDD
rXPg8qEjVBzPtyYK5u6MWTc=
=7Lu5
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Edward Lewis]

At 13:18 -0400 3/25/08, Melinda Shore wrote:

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.

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

Never confuse activity with progress.  Activity pays more.
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Frank Ellermann]

Simon Josefsson wrote:

 Fortunately, if the IETF becomes more like ISO, then I am
 confident that there will be another organization that is
 similar to the original IETF spirit.  When there is damage,
 route around it...

Strong ACK

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Simon Josefsson]

Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 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).

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
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Russ Housley]

Simon:

   Since IETF does not vote, it is certainly not an issue here?
 
  This is not totally true.  A WG Chair or Area Director cannot
  judge rough consensus if they are unsure if the portion of the
  population that is representing a dissenting view is one person
  or many different people.  This is especially true when there
  are a large number of silent observers.
 
  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 voice?
  No problem. Influencing determination of a consensus with public
  impact? That should not be allowed, IMO.

What if the pseudonymous voice raise a valid technical concern, provide
useful text for a specification, or even co-author a specification?

I think decisions should be based on technically sound arguments.
Whether someone wants to reveal their real identity is not necessarily
correlated to the same person providing useful contributions.

Raising a technical problem anonymously does not seem to be a 
concern.  However, there could be significant IPR problems with 
anonymous solutions to technical problems.

Russ 

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Hallam-Baker, Phillip]

If someone participates under a pseudonym with the objective of inserting 
patented technology and anyone finds out they are in big trouble. Much worse 
than any prior case.

The much bigger problem is people who read an rfc and write out a patent 
application over it. It has happened and people have been forced to buy them.


Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)

 -Original Message-
From:   Russ Housley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:   Tuesday, March 25, 2008 12:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
To: Simon Josefsson
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject:Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

Simon:

   Since IETF does not vote, it is certainly not an issue here?
 
  This is not totally true.  A WG Chair or Area Director cannot
  judge rough consensus if they are unsure if the portion of the
  population that is representing a dissenting view is one person
  or many different people.  This is especially true when there
  are a large number of silent observers.
 
  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 voice?
  No problem. Influencing determination of a consensus with public
  impact? That should not be allowed, IMO.

What if the pseudonymous voice raise a valid technical concern, provide
useful text for a specification, or even co-author a specification?

I think decisions should be based on technically sound arguments.
Whether someone wants to reveal their real identity is not necessarily
correlated to the same person providing useful contributions.

Raising a technical problem anonymously does not seem to be a 
concern.  However, there could be significant IPR problems with 
anonymous solutions to technical problems.

Russ 

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Theodore Tso]

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:23:42PM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
 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.

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
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Thierry Moreau]

Russ Housley wrote:

 
 Raising a technical problem anonymously does not seem to be a 
 concern.  However, there could be significant IPR problems with 
 anonymous solutions to technical problems.
 

It is my understanding that IETF is already in this type of problems.

Solutions contributed by employees of large organizations could be 
problematic, as soon as unpublished patent applications are considered 
confidential corporate trade secrets circulated on a need-to-know 
basis, which is recommended practice by patent practitioners anyway.

Sometimes one wonders even about published patent applications, 
especially when a US patent agent expects broad claims to be tailored to 
the prior art in the course of examination - hardly anyone from the 
corporation would be allowed to make well-informed statements about the 
connection of the patent application to an SDO activity.

In practice, I suspect that many corporations abstain from contributing 
to IETF in specific standardization areas where they have an IPR 
strategy, and so the scope of IETF activities - and achievements - is 
shrinking.


 Russ 
 
 ___
 IETF mailing list
 IETF@ietf.org
 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
 

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada   H2M 2A1

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

web site: http://www.connotech.com
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Simon Josefsson]

Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Simon:

   Since IETF does not vote, it is certainly not an issue here?
 
  This is not totally true.  A WG Chair or Area Director cannot
  judge rough consensus if they are unsure if the portion of the
  population that is representing a dissenting view is one person
  or many different people.  This is especially true when there
  are a large number of silent observers.
 
  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 voice?
  No problem. Influencing determination of a consensus with public
  impact? That should not be allowed, IMO.

What if the pseudonymous voice raise a valid technical concern, provide
useful text for a specification, or even co-author a specification?

I think decisions should be based on technically sound arguments.
Whether someone wants to reveal their real identity is not necessarily
correlated to the same person providing useful contributions.

 Raising a technical problem anonymously does not seem to be a 
 concern.  However, there could be significant IPR problems with 
 anonymous solutions to technical problems.

What kind of problems?

/Simon
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Darryl (Dassa) Lynch]

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
|| I've been carefully not posting in this thread for a while,
|| but can't control myself today. (So I'm not particularly
|| arguing with Ted's points, his e-mail is just the the latest e-mail
|| in the thread) 
|| 
|| My apologies in advance.
|| 
|| As Ted said, in theory, all decisions are supposed to be
|| confirmed on the mailing list, but I haven't seen anyone
|| point out the reason why - because we also think it's
|| important to have very few barriers to participation in the
|| IETF, so we don't require attendance at any face-to-face
|| meeting, ever.
|| 
|| So I'm not sure how we verify identities when anyone we
|| question can just post from an e-mail account at an ISP in
|| Tierra del Fuego, and say the next time you're in the tip
|| of South America, come by and verify my identity.
SNIP

My understanding is there is a system of peer validation in operation.  If a
contributor only posts once or twice, they are less likely to be taken
seriously than someone who posts regularly and often, especially when first
starting to participate.

The damage done by sock puppets and stooges is minimised in such systems as
they are fairly quickly recognised for what they are.

It is more a matter of judging the content of contributions rather than the
contributor.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Pseudonym side-effects [Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action]

[Brian E Carpenter]

On 2008-03-26 04:44, John Levine (or somebody) wrote:
...
 So rather than inventing yet more complex rules, I would be inclined
 to have a much simpler rule that says that if a group's leader sees
 mail from someone who is obviously You Know Who or You Know Who Else
 already subject to 3683, just block it and send out a one sentence
 notice reporting it.  Then return to useful work.
 
 Regards,
 Glenn Curtiss

Unfortunately this could be seriously unfair if the someone is
in fact not You Know Who but someone with very similar opinions
and lingusitic quirks. Declaring the mail to be off-topic or an
attempt to re-open an existing consensus would be fine.

On 2008-03-26 05:33, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

 What problem is anonymous posting causing, that would not also be caused by
 (for example) Spencer posting a draft saying
 
 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79
 
 ... if I won't disclose them?

IANAL, but I believe that the difference is that if you falsely make
such a representation, it should be enough to strike down your patent
in court. I'd guess that even if you make it using a pseudonym,
and that can be proved, the same is true. But I think we'd need our
lawyer to take this point any further.

Brian

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Corporate side-effect [Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action]

[Brian E Carpenter]

On 2008-03-26 08:43, Thierry Moreau wrote:
 
 Russ Housley wrote:
 
 Raising a technical problem anonymously does not seem to be a 
 concern.  However, there could be significant IPR problems with 
 anonymous solutions to technical problems.

 
 It is my understanding that IETF is already in this type of problems.

What you describe is a different problem...

 
 Solutions contributed by employees of large organizations could be 
 problematic, as soon as unpublished patent applications are considered 
 confidential corporate trade secrets circulated on a need-to-know 
 basis, which is recommended practice by patent practitioners anyway.

Correct. That's one reason we have the reasonably and personally
known clause. If an IETF contributor is on the need-to-know list,
s/he certainly has to force the issue with the corporate IPR
folk. It can be painful and slow.

 
 Sometimes one wonders even about published patent applications, 
 especially when a US patent agent expects broad claims to be tailored to 
 the prior art in the course of examination - hardly anyone from the 
 corporation would be allowed to make well-informed statements about the 
 connection of the patent application to an SDO activity.

But that doesn't remove the obligation to disclose. You'll notice that
most disclosures are very general in actual content, since nobody
wants to give away the details of a patent in advance.

 
 In practice, I suspect that many corporations abstain from contributing 
 to IETF in specific standardization areas where they have an IPR 
 strategy, and so the scope of IETF activities - and achievements - is 
 shrinking.

That's unknowable, but is certainly a very old story - well understood
when the IPR BCPs were first developed. I don't think there's any
news here.

Brian
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Russ Housley]

Simon:

  Raising a technical problem anonymously does not seem to be a
  concern.  However, there could be significant IPR problems with
  anonymous solutions to technical problems.

What kind of problems?

If there is IPR associated with a potential solution, then a 
malicious person could use an anonymous posting to avoid the NOTE 
WELL.  This would allow the IPR holder could reasonably claim that 
they were unaware that the IETF was considering the use of their 
encumbered technology.  Thus, they would not make an IPR 
statement.  If we learned that the anonymous posting actually came 
from person was affiliated with the IPR holder, then there is legal 
recourse.  My point is that by avoiding anonymous posting, the 
likelihood of such abuse is significantly reduced.

Russ 

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Simon Josefsson]

Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Simon:

  Raising a technical problem anonymously does not seem to be a
  concern.  However, there could be significant IPR problems with
  anonymous solutions to technical problems.

What kind of problems?

 If there is IPR associated with a potential solution, then a 
 malicious person could use an anonymous posting to avoid the NOTE 
 WELL.  This would allow the IPR holder could reasonably claim that 
 they were unaware that the IETF was considering the use of their 
 encumbered technology. Thus, they would not make an IPR statement. 

Are there examples where something like that may have been attempted?

Jorge has explained why the NOTE WELL is binding for all IETF
contributors in:

https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1239

That discussion appears to apply equally well to an anonymous
contributor.

 If we learned that the anonymous posting actually came from person was
 affiliated with the IPR holder, then there is legal recourse.  My
 point is that by avoiding anonymous posting, the likelihood of such
 abuse is significantly reduced.

I think the point would be valid if there were significant abuse today.

/Simon
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[stewe]

 [...]
 If we learned that the anonymous posting actually came from person was
 affiliated with the IPR holder, then there is legal recourse.  My
 point is that by avoiding anonymous posting, the likelihood of such
 abuse is significantly reduced.

 I think the point would be valid if there were significant abuse today.


I don't know what would qualify as significant here, but there has been at
least one rather high profile antitrust case in the recent history
(semiconductor industry), in which a situation similar to the one we are
discussing has played a role.

Stephan

 /Simon
 ___
 IETF mailing list
 IETF@ietf.org
 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Simon Josefsson]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 [...]
 If we learned that the anonymous posting actually came from person was
 affiliated with the IPR holder, then there is legal recourse.  My
 point is that by avoiding anonymous posting, the likelihood of such
 abuse is significantly reduced.

 I think the point would be valid if there were significant abuse today.


 I don't know what would qualify as significant here, but there has been at
 least one rather high profile antitrust case in the recent history
 (semiconductor industry), in which a situation similar to the one we are
 discussing has played a role.

If the account at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits

is to be trusted, I can't find many similarities with the situation we
are discussing here.  Could you clarify how anonymous contributions
played a role in your example?

/Simon
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action.

[LB]

Gentlemen,
Since I agreed to replace JFC Morfin to the IETF I sent less than ten
mails. Most had two abnormal reasons. (a)To explain that I am not JFC
Morfin. (b) Because our commercial opponents of our non-commercial
approach did not asked, politely or not, before to accuse me of it;
and to mock my name as did my primary school classmates very long ago.
For their information, we are 5 Louis Blériot to have the phone in
France, more than Randy Presuhns (I just got into red list because of
him).

The one you fear suggested I accept the suggestion of a member of the
IESG: I said that I would ask my friends purely technical
contributions, as much as possible in the form of Drafts. In order not
to waste the time at the IESG.

So it seems to me that the current debate, which I do not have much
time to spend and who is in a language that I do not master, has two
other goals.

- Discredit these Drafts in case they would allow the internet to work better.
- Protect all the commercial interests by wanting paying members. As
if IETF was afraid that the non-profit lead users may join.

I see what is happening: one wants to prevent small businesses to
speak to the IETF. A single JFC Morfin to protect many's culture,
language, occupation, family was already too much for our competitors
(who came together to sign the PR-action against him). Now one does
certainly not all those he represented!

Is that correct IETF?
-- 
LB
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Noel Chiappa]

 From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 If someone participates under a pseudonym with the objective of
 inserting patented technology and anyone finds out they are in big
 trouble. Much worse than any prior case.

We should write in our rules that anyone who contributes technology to any
IETF activity which they know to be either a) patented, b) the subject of a
filing, or c) the subject of a planned future filing, *without disclosing said
patent status* to the WG/I*, either:

- i) thereby grants an irrevocable, in perpetuity, no-fee license to use said
patent(s) to everyone in connection with any implementation of any IETF
specification resulting from said activity (if they are in any kind of
position to do so, e.g. are an employee of the patent holder),

or:

- ii) agrees to indemnify anyone in the universe for any costs they may incur
through use of said patent(s) in connection with any implementation of any
IETF specification resulting from said activity (if they aren't).

That oughta go a long way to fixing *that* problem.

(And if our IP rules, which I haven't looked at recently, already said that,
my apologies, and don't kick me too hard! :-)

Noel
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Frank Ellermann]

Noel Chiappa wrote:

 if our IP rules, which I haven't looked at recently, already
 said that, my apologies, and don't kick me too hard! :-)

*KICK* ;-)  Posted yesterday:

| The IESG has received a request from the Intellectual Property
| Rights WG (ipr) to consider the following document:

| - 'Rights Contributors provide to the IETF Trust '
|   draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-08.txt as a BCP

| The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
| solicits final comments on this action.  Please send substantive
| comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2008-04-07.


___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Doug Ewell]

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.

 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.

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

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Peter Constable]

 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Randy Presuhn wrote:

 However, the vocabulary, style, content, and peculiar world-view of
 this latest missive leave me more convinced than ever that LB
 is indeed JFC Morphin, and that under the terms of RFC 3683
 we are well justified in suspending the posting privileges for that
 address.

I'll mention a few things in relation to this: First, I believe the record in 
the archives of the LTRU list will show that at times in the past JFC attempted 
to circumvent actions taken to limit his posting privileges to that list by 
using alternate email addresses, signed under his same name. Secondly, at 
various times since his posting privileges to that list were first limited, the 
list received mail from posters presenting themselves by a different name but 
whose vocabulary, style, content and world view were decidedly similar to that 
of JFC. In short, LB is not the first instance of a poster to LTRU that I 
suspected of being a sock-puppet for JFC. Nor is it just of late that LB was 
suspected of being a sock-puppet for JFC.

Also, a quick search for lbleriot did not point to anybody engaging in public 
discussions except on the LTRU or IETF lists. I find that somewhat curious 
given LB's comment to be a member of a multilinguistic working list: I 
suppose there could be a group of multiple individuals working on protocol 
specifications intended for the Internet or other such public systems but all 
of whose discussions are conducted on a private list, but it would be readily 
accounted for if, in fact, LB were no more than a sock-puppet.

Granted, LB's posts to LTRU have been neither as frequent or a long as were 
JFC's before his privileges were suspended. And granted that there is one other 
online presence for a lbleriot who, for over some period of time ending early 
last year, sold a number of items on eBay and apparently had very positive 
feedback. Neither of these points lead me to consider Randy's actions to be 
unreasonable, however.


Peter
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:45:19AM -0700,
 Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 
 a message of 12 lines which said:

 Does the IETF have a policy regarding misrepresented identities?

I don't know but, in this case, the problem is not that he used a
pseudonym (after all, noone here knows if my name is really Stéphane
Bortzmeyer), the problem is that he used *two* identities, the second
one being setup only to workaround a PR-action.

If a WG chair asks for five reviewers for an I-D, what will you think
if they are all the same person under different identities? 

There is no written rule today, because, before He Who Must Not Be
Named, noone was twisted enough to act that way.

 In the particular incident, it is assumed that the person using the
 name of a famous French aviation pioneer is in fact someone else. On
 the one hand, using pseudonyms is a form of free speech. 

Nothing to do with the use of pseudonyms. That's a red herring.


___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Russ Housley]

I cannot find one.  It seem to be a hole than needs filled.

Russ


At 11:45 AM 3/23/2008, Christian Huitema wrote:
Does the IETF have a policy regarding misrepresented identities?

In the particular incident, it is assumed that the person using the 
name of a famous French aviation pioneer is in fact someone else. On 
the one hand, using pseudonyms is a form of free speech. But on the 
other hand, in a standard setting body, hiding identities is not 
necessarily something we want to encourage. What are the 
implications for our standard process? What about copyrights and patents?

-- Christian Huitema

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Wes Beebee (wbeebee)]

The closest I could find was:

Working groups SHOULD ensure that their associated mailing list is
 manageable.  For example, some may try to circumvent the revocation
 of their posting rights by changing email addresses; accordingly it
 should be possible to restrict the new email address.

from page 5 of RFC 3683.  Misrepresented identities may fall under the 
same banner as changing email addresses for the purposes of RFC 3683.

- Wes Beebee

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Russ Housley
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 11:36 AM
To: Christian Huitema
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

I cannot find one.  It seem to be a hole than needs filled.

Russ


At 11:45 AM 3/23/2008, Christian Huitema wrote:
Does the IETF have a policy regarding misrepresented identities?

In the particular incident, it is assumed that the person using the 
name of a famous French aviation pioneer is in fact someone else. On 
the one hand, using pseudonyms is a form of free speech. But on the 
other hand, in a standard setting body, hiding identities is not 
necessarily something we want to encourage. What are the implications 
for our standard process? What about copyrights and patents?

-- Christian Huitema

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[LB]

Cher Russ,
The debate about me is depressing. Only signatories to the PR-action
against JFC Morfin are interested. They are not very credible. Their
doctrine is globalization: internationalization of the medium
(Unicode), localization of the terminal (CLDR) and identification of
linguistic context (RFC 4646). This approach is consistent with the
early structuralist theories of Chomsky. It removes language barriers
between IBM and its foreign clients. It is limited in its capacity and
number of languages. It is unable of multilingualism (all languages
architecturally supported as English). It is incapable to scale
towards a semantic internet. You see it with IDNA.

I wanted to publish multilingual books according the pedagogy of
cybernetic (Wienner, Coufignal, Perret, etc.). It was evident that I
did not have to start from the texts in languages, but from the
semantics to be expressed in languages. Not being a linguist (I do not
speak English: I use Google and Prompt, and I read again so-so) I
committed to the vision of JFC Morfin: the approach of enunciation,
repositories (MDRS), brain to brain interintelligibility, etc. Errors
of the WG-LTU were of principle. The danger was in its vagueness (JFC
Morfin made it corrected), confusion towards ISO 3166 (which was
corrected last summer at ISO) and in its lack of integration of IDNA
(what falls to me after JFC was released from Harald Alvestrand's
list).

I knew that I would be attacked in IVFT. I thought that this would
be based on technical (and I have communicated very little). Not on
rather ridiculous ad hominems and word games that we should have
passed the age for a very long time. In fact it has been courteous and
very nice on the part of everyone except the clique (I think that's
the technical term) of our religious opponents. This is why:

-- Except further provocations I do not intend to appeal
-- I shall not prove my identity separately from all the other IETF
-- I will encourage my friends to publish Drafts for testing a
multilingual and Semantic Internet without pollution, excluding
technical and political pressure,
-- If we or our texts are subject to exclusion for reasons not
technically documented this will be visible to all.

--
LB

2008/3/22, LB [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Dear Russ,
  I am not sure what should be the next step and I wish that all is
  clear and transparent in the management of what I take for a censure
  for offence of opinion or nationality. I think like somebody else, I
  use the technical vocabulary appropriate for my thought. I think in
  the same mother tongue as another Frenchman. Is it to protest with Mr.
  Newman or with Mr. Presuhn or to appeal directly to the IESG?

  I used in vain the RFC-Editor find out what was the rule. I found
  nothing. Mr Presuhn says moreover that there are none. I would also
  like to know how locate in your archives the cases where the identity
  of somebody has been challenged within the IETF in such manner and
  what procedures have been initiated.

  With my thanks and my best regards

 --
  LB

  2008/3/21, Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

  LB:
  
Randy has responded quite publicly.  I think his position is quite
clear.  So, the next step is up to you.
  
  
Russ
  
  
  
At 08:38 PM 3/20/2008, LB wrote:
Dear Sir,
Like other members of the multilinguistic working list to which I
belong, since 2002 I received a copy of the mails exchanged between
JFC Morfin and your organization, on IDNs then langtags. And we have
often discussed them. I do not thus ignore big matter of this subject

As JFC Morfin got everything we wanted except again:
(1) that the WG-IDNABIS quickly demonstrates the merits of IDNA or
finds a better solution.
(2) that the RFC 4646 is respected by the IESG what also calls for the
RFC 4646bis underway.
I proposed to replace him as an IETF watcher, given the importance of
his current work.

In two months, I sent a half-dozen of messages and received courteous
answers. Of course I expected a possible ostracism. I was prepared to
respond with kind understanding. This was the case with Brian
Carpenter. He accused me of being JFC Morfin in an humorous but a way
a little hurtful. We exchanged and he had the courtesy to apologize
willingly and  and to inform the IESG about it.

I would have done the same with Randy Preshun if contacted me, even
impolitely, even after having ignored my question about a significant
breakthrough for us he implied, even after that he probably pushed a
trap by misrepresenting our position and that of ISO. Instead, he
dashes into a guerilla of racist censorship against me: it is because
of the MLTF ideas that he accuses me of not being me.

2008/3/20, Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
  Hi -
 
   There have been expressions of support, and no objections on this 
 list,
   to the proposed metric (and one off-list 

RE: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Tamir Melamed]

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:45:19AM -0700, Christian Huitema wrote a message 
which included:
using pseudonyms is a form of free speech
 
I am not familiar with the specifics of this case but in the internet world 
pseudonyms is very common. 
I agree that in a standard setting body hiding identities isn't a good practice 
and I would recommend to that the WG chair or the IESG Area Director will have 
the authority to ask for the identity of a member. We don't have to invoke that 
but it could be an addition to RFC 3683.

Tamir Melamed  Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:47:39 +0100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action CC: 
ietf@ietf.org  On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:45:19AM -0700, Christian Huitema 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote  a message of 12 lines which said:   Does the 
IETF have a policy regarding misrepresented identities?  I don't know but, in 
this case, the problem is not that he used a pseudonym (after all, noone here 
knows if my name is really Stéphane Bortzmeyer), the problem is that he used 
*two* identities, the second one being setup only to workaround a PR-action. 
 If a WG chair asks for five reviewers for an I-D, what will you think if 
they are all the same person under different identities?   There is no 
written rule today, because, before He Who Must Not Be Named, noone was 
twisted enough to act that way.   In the particular incident, it is assumed 
that the person using the  name of a famous French aviation pioneer is in 
fact someone else. On  the one hand, using pseudonyms is a form of free 
speech.   Nothing to do with the use of pseudonyms. That's a red herring.  
 ___ IETF mailing list 
IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

Russ Housley skrev:
 I cannot find one.  It seem to be a hole than needs filled.
Solution space:

At the time when I was assistant chair of the ICANN DNSO General 
Assembly, we had this exact problem with the many identities of Jeff 
Williams; he had enough pseudo-personalities on the list that he would 
sometimes claim to have a majority, jut from his own postings.

We resolved that by imposing a rule that when someone challenged whether 
a person was distinct from another person, that person had to prove to 
*someone* trusted by the community (not necessarily the accuser or the 
chairs) that these identities were distinct, for instance by offering 
copies of legal ID, or any other means convincing to that individual.

In the case of Jeff Williams, the only evidence produced was phone 
calls from various identities with similar-sounding voices, so all but 
one of his identities were barred from the list.

It's not a pretty problem, but it's eminently solvable - and without 
impinging much on the ability to speak anonymously.

Harald

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Christian Huitema]

Does the IETF have a policy regarding misrepresented identities?

In the particular incident, it is assumed that the person using the name of a 
famous French aviation pioneer is in fact someone else. On the one hand, using 
pseudonyms is a form of free speech. But on the other hand, in a standard 
setting body, hiding identities is not necessarily something we want to 
encourage. What are the implications for our standard process? What about 
copyrights and patents?

-- Christian Huitema



___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Theodore Tso]

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:45:19AM -0700, Christian Huitema wrote:
 Does the IETF have a policy regarding misrepresented identities?
 
 In the particular incident, it is assumed that the person using the
 name of a famous French aviation pioneer is in fact someone else. On
 the one hand, using pseudonyms is a form of free speech. But on the
 other hand, in a standard setting body, hiding identities is not
 necessarily something we want to encourage. What are the
 implications for our standard process? What about copyrights and
 patents?

The use of pseudonums is very much a form of free speach.  To quote
from from the U.S. Supreme Court,

`Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have
played an important role in the progress of mankind.’ Talley
v. California (1960).  Great works of literature have frequently
been produced by authors writing under assumed names.  Despite
readers’ curiosity and the public’s interest in identifying the
creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide
whether or not to disclose her true identity.  The decision in
favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or
official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely
by a desire to preserve as much of one’s privacy as possible.
Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary
endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the
marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest
in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry.  Accordingly, an
author’s decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions
concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication,
is an aspect of freedom of speech protected by the First
Amendment. --- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 1995.

However, free speech rights are those which a government is not
allowed to abograte via the unique coercive means made available to it
(i.e., prison, fines, etc.).  Free speech does not imply that anyone
wishing to avail themselves of their free speech rights gets to use
anyone's printing press or radio station or television station or IETF
wg mailing list to broadcast their free speech to the those that
have no interest in listening to it.  Nor does it give people the
right to use a bullhorn to loudly blare their opinions in a
residential neighborhood at 3am in the morning.

So free speech rights is a red herring, in terms of whether or not any
decision made by the IETF would violate LB's fundamental human rights
(assming he really is in the EU), since the IETF is not a state actor,
and he is perfectly free to spout his views about the multilingual
internet in plenty of other fora.

In terms of whether or not there is value added by allowing anonymous
contributions in IETF wg mailing lists, issues arround copyright and
the IETF's patent disclosure rules seem to mitigate any posible value
in a standards context, and while I wouldn't suggest making a big deal of
requiring identity verification for every single working group
participant, if there is reasonable cause for a working group chair to
believe that someone is using a pseudonym to evade an RFC 3683 PR
action, that the IETF reasonable proof of a real-life identity.

Certainly some of the claims made by LB of this being done with the
support of our two direct commercial competitors in his WG can not
be evaluated while LB tries to hide behind a shield of anonymity.

  - Ted
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[LB]

Dear Russ,
I am not sure what should be the next step and I wish that all is
clear and transparent in the management of what I take for a censure
for offence of opinion or nationality. I think like somebody else, I
use the technical vocabulary appropriate for my thought. I think in
the same mother tongue as another Frenchman. Is it to protest with Mr.
Newman or with Mr. Presuhn or to appeal directly to the IESG?

I used in vain the RFC-Editor find out what was the rule. I found
nothing. Mr Presuhn says moreover that there are none. I would also
like to know how locate in your archives the cases where the identity
of somebody has been challenged within the IETF in such manner and
what procedures have been initiated.

With my thanks and my best regards
--
LB

2008/3/21, Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 LB:

  Randy has responded quite publicly.  I think his position is quite
  clear.  So, the next step is up to you.


  Russ



  At 08:38 PM 3/20/2008, LB wrote:
  Dear Sir,
  Like other members of the multilinguistic working list to which I
  belong, since 2002 I received a copy of the mails exchanged between
  JFC Morfin and your organization, on IDNs then langtags. And we have
  often discussed them. I do not thus ignore big matter of this subject
  
  As JFC Morfin got everything we wanted except again:
  (1) that the WG-IDNABIS quickly demonstrates the merits of IDNA or
  finds a better solution.
  (2) that the RFC 4646 is respected by the IESG what also calls for the
  RFC 4646bis underway.
  I proposed to replace him as an IETF watcher, given the importance of
  his current work.
  
  In two months, I sent a half-dozen of messages and received courteous
  answers. Of course I expected a possible ostracism. I was prepared to
  respond with kind understanding. This was the case with Brian
  Carpenter. He accused me of being JFC Morfin in an humorous but a way
  a little hurtful. We exchanged and he had the courtesy to apologize
  willingly and  and to inform the IESG about it.
  
  I would have done the same with Randy Preshun if contacted me, even
  impolitely, even after having ignored my question about a significant
  breakthrough for us he implied, even after that he probably pushed a
  trap by misrepresenting our position and that of ISO. Instead, he
  dashes into a guerilla of racist censorship against me: it is because
  of the MLTF ideas that he accuses me of not being me.
  
  2008/3/20, Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi -
   
 There have been expressions of support, and no objections on this list,
 to the proposed metric (and one off-list objection by JFC Morfin) for
 identifying possible sock-puppets of those whose posting privileges
 have been revoked pursuant to RFC 3683.  So, we're using it.
   
 We engaged the procedure with three independent working group
   participants.
 All three identified the same email address, which was also
   identified by the
 responsible area director and both co-chairs.  Consequently,
   future postings
 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] will not be delivered, since we believe
   this address
 is a sock-puppet for JFC Morfin.
   
 Randy
 ltru co-chair
  
  You will understand that I have reached an age where I am not
  impressed anymore and that I have time for a good cause:
  -- or Randy Preshun apologizes and it stays there.
  -- or he has suspended my rights without warning and is preparing for
  a PR action against me without any reason. He does it with the support
  of our two direct commercial competitors in his WG. Under these
  conditions you will understand that I am not to be giving anything
  that enables them to validate a practice of arbitrary exclusion of the
  IETF. Today I, whom tomorrow?
  --
  LB


___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Sam Hartman]

 LB == LB  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

LB Dear Russ, I am not sure what should be the next step and I
LB wish that all is clear and transparent in the management of
LB what I take for a censure for offence of opinion or
LB nationality. I think like somebody else, I use the technical
LB vocabulary appropriate for my thought. I think in the same
LB mother tongue as another Frenchman. Is it to protest with Mr.
LB Newman or with Mr. Presuhn or to appeal directly to the IESG?

I think the next step should be for you to contribute positevly and
constructively to the ltru working group.  As I understand it, your
posts are moderated.  That means that if they are constructive they
will get through to the wg.


Don't turn this into some story about persecution; help work on
internet standards.
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 10:22:01AM +0100,
 LB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 
 a message of 96 lines which said:

 what I take for a censure for offence of opinion or nationality. I
 think like somebody else, I use the technical vocabulary appropriate
 for my thought. I think in the same mother tongue as another
 Frenchman.

For the record, since I was one of the three LTRU participants
consulted, and since I'm french, I insist that it has nothing to do
with nationality. People from all over the world, not only USAns,
think the same about the LB and JFC entities and their dummy
organizations.

It is not a matter of opinion either. To disagree with opinions
require that opinions are expressed. The long and convoluted messages
of LBJFC are not even wrong since they are not parsable by an
ordinary engineer. (I can testify it is the same thing when they are
written in french.)

 I would also like to know how locate in your archives the cases
 where the identity of somebody has been challenged within the IETF
 in such manner and what procedures have been initiated.

Randy Presuhn clearly said in his first message that there was no
precedent (and I add that no reasonable person could have believed
that someone was twisted enough to use a sock-puppet.)
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Russ Housley]

LB:

The first step is to appeal to Chris Newman.  If you do not find his 
response satisfactory, then you raise the matter with me as IETF 
Chair.  If you do not find my response satisfactory, then you raise 
the matter with the IESG.  If you do not find the IESG response 
satisfactory, then you raise the matter with the IAB.  The IAB is the 
end of the appeal chain for this matter.

I do not know of any previous situation where two email identities 
were claimed to represent the same person, and on of those people 
already had a PR-Action.

I hope this can be resolved in a satisfactory manner very soon 
without invoking all of these steps.

Russ

me as IETF Chair.At 05:22 AM 3/22/2008, LB wrote:
Dear Russ,
I am not sure what should be the next step and I wish that all is
clear and transparent in the management of what I take for a censure
for offence of opinion or nationality. I think like somebody else, I
use the technical vocabulary appropriate for my thought. I think in
the same mother tongue as another Frenchman. Is it to protest with Mr.
Newman or with Mr. Presuhn or to appeal directly to the IESG?

I used in vain the RFC-Editor find out what was the rule. I found
nothing. Mr Presuhn says moreover that there are none. I would also
like to know how locate in your archives the cases where the identity
of somebody has been challenged within the IETF in such manner and
what procedures have been initiated.

With my thanks and my best regards
--
LB

2008/3/21, Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
  LB:
 
   Randy has responded quite publicly.  I think his position is quite
   clear.  So, the next step is up to you.
 
 
   Russ
 
 
 
   At 08:38 PM 3/20/2008, LB wrote:
   Dear Sir,
   Like other members of the multilinguistic working list to which I
   belong, since 2002 I received a copy of the mails exchanged between
   JFC Morfin and your organization, on IDNs then langtags. And we have
   often discussed them. I do not thus ignore big matter of this subject
   
   As JFC Morfin got everything we wanted except again:
   (1) that the WG-IDNABIS quickly demonstrates the merits of IDNA or
   finds a better solution.
   (2) that the RFC 4646 is respected by the IESG what also calls for the
   RFC 4646bis underway.
   I proposed to replace him as an IETF watcher, given the importance of
   his current work.
   
   In two months, I sent a half-dozen of messages and received courteous
   answers. Of course I expected a possible ostracism. I was prepared to
   respond with kind understanding. This was the case with Brian
   Carpenter. He accused me of being JFC Morfin in an humorous but a way
   a little hurtful. We exchanged and he had the courtesy to apologize
   willingly and  and to inform the IESG about it.
   
   I would have done the same with Randy Preshun if contacted me, even
   impolitely, even after having ignored my question about a significant
   breakthrough for us he implied, even after that he probably pushed a
   trap by misrepresenting our position and that of ISO. Instead, he
   dashes into a guerilla of racist censorship against me: it is because
   of the MLTF ideas that he accuses me of not being me.
   
   2008/3/20, Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Hi -

  There have been expressions of support, and no objections 
 on this list,
  to the proposed metric (and one off-list objection by JFC Morfin) for
  identifying possible sock-puppets of those whose posting privileges
  have been revoked pursuant to RFC 3683.  So, we're using it.

  We engaged the procedure with three independent working group
participants.
  All three identified the same email address, which was also
identified by the
  responsible area director and both co-chairs.  Consequently,
future postings
  from [EMAIL PROTECTED] will not be delivered, since we believe
this address
  is a sock-puppet for JFC Morfin.

  Randy
  ltru co-chair
   
   You will understand that I have reached an age where I am not
   impressed anymore and that I have time for a good cause:
   -- or Randy Preshun apologizes and it stays there.
   -- or he has suspended my rights without warning and is preparing for
   a PR action against me without any reason. He does it with the support
   of our two direct commercial competitors in his WG. Under these
   conditions you will understand that I am not to be giving anything
   that enables them to validate a practice of arbitrary exclusion of the
   IETF. Today I, whom tomorrow?
   --
   LB
 
 

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Randy Presuhn]

Hi -

My co-chair Martin Duerst and I, and the three independent ltru working
group participants we asked (as well as some we didn't ask), are
convinced that LB is a sock-puppet for JFC Morfin.  In consultation
with Chris Newman, the responsible area director, we set the
moderated bit for that subscriber address on the working group
mailing list. If LB believes we have acted inappropriately, LB is
free to follow the appeal process described in section 6.5  of RFC 2026.

However, the vocabulary, style, content, and peculiar world-view of
this latest missive leave me more convinced than ever that LB
is indeed JFC Morphin, and that under the terms of RFC 3683
we are well justified in suspending the posting privileges for that
address.

Randy
ltru co-chair

 From: LB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
 Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:38 PM
 Subject: Re: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

 Dear Sir,
 Like other members of the multilinguistic working list to which I
 belong, since 2002 I received a copy of the mails exchanged between
 JFC Morfin and your organization, on IDNs then langtags. And we have
 often discussed them. I do not thus ignore big matter of this subject
 
 As JFC Morfin got everything we wanted except again:
 (1) that the WG-IDNABIS quickly demonstrates the merits of IDNA or
 finds a better solution.
 (2) that the RFC 4646 is respected by the IESG what also calls for the
 RFC 4646bis underway.
 I proposed to replace him as an IETF watcher, given the importance of
 his current work.
 
 In two months, I sent a half-dozen of messages and received courteous
 answers. Of course I expected a possible ostracism. I was prepared to
 respond with kind understanding. This was the case with Brian
 Carpenter. He accused me of being JFC Morfin in an humorous but a way
 a little hurtful. We exchanged and he had the courtesy to apologize
 willingly and  and to inform the IESG about it.
 
 I would have done the same with Randy Preshun if contacted me, even
 impolitely, even after having ignored my question about a significant
 breakthrough for us he implied, even after that he probably pushed a
 trap by misrepresenting our position and that of ISO. Instead, he
 dashes into a guerilla of racist censorship against me: it is because
 of the MLTF ideas that he accuses me of not being me.
 
 2008/3/20, Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
  Hi -
 
   There have been expressions of support, and no objections on this list,
   to the proposed metric (and one off-list objection by JFC Morfin) for
   identifying possible sock-puppets of those whose posting privileges
   have been revoked pursuant to RFC 3683.  So, we're using it.
 
   We engaged the procedure with three independent working group participants.
   All three identified the same email address, which was also identified by 
  the
   responsible area director and both co-chairs.  Consequently, future 
  postings
   from [EMAIL PROTECTED] will not be delivered, since we believe this address
   is a sock-puppet for JFC Morfin.
 
   Randy
   ltru co-chair
 
 You will understand that I have reached an age where I am not
 impressed anymore and that I have time for a good cause:
 -- or Randy Preshun apologizes and it stays there.
 -- or he has suspended my rights without warning and is preparing for
 a PR action against me without any reason. He does it with the support
 of our two direct commercial competitors in his WG. Under these
 conditions you will understand that I am not to be giving anything
 that enables them to validate a practice of arbitrary exclusion of the
 IETF. Today I, whom tomorrow?
 -- 
 LB
 ___
 IETF mailing list
 IETF@ietf.org
 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[LB]

Dear Sir,
Like other members of the multilinguistic working list to which I
belong, since 2002 I received a copy of the mails exchanged between
JFC Morfin and your organization, on IDNs then langtags. And we have
often discussed them. I do not thus ignore big matter of this subject

As JFC Morfin got everything we wanted except again:
(1) that the WG-IDNABIS quickly demonstrates the merits of IDNA or
finds a better solution.
(2) that the RFC 4646 is respected by the IESG what also calls for the
RFC 4646bis underway.
I proposed to replace him as an IETF watcher, given the importance of
his current work.

In two months, I sent a half-dozen of messages and received courteous
answers. Of course I expected a possible ostracism. I was prepared to
respond with kind understanding. This was the case with Brian
Carpenter. He accused me of being JFC Morfin in an humorous but a way
a little hurtful. We exchanged and he had the courtesy to apologize
willingly and  and to inform the IESG about it.

I would have done the same with Randy Preshun if contacted me, even
impolitely, even after having ignored my question about a significant
breakthrough for us he implied, even after that he probably pushed a
trap by misrepresenting our position and that of ISO. Instead, he
dashes into a guerilla of racist censorship against me: it is because
of the MLTF ideas that he accuses me of not being me.

2008/3/20, Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Hi -

  There have been expressions of support, and no objections on this list,
  to the proposed metric (and one off-list objection by JFC Morfin) for
  identifying possible sock-puppets of those whose posting privileges
  have been revoked pursuant to RFC 3683.  So, we're using it.

  We engaged the procedure with three independent working group participants.
  All three identified the same email address, which was also identified by the
  responsible area director and both co-chairs.  Consequently, future postings
  from [EMAIL PROTECTED] will not be delivered, since we believe this address
  is a sock-puppet for JFC Morfin.

  Randy
  ltru co-chair

You will understand that I have reached an age where I am not
impressed anymore and that I have time for a good cause:
-- or Randy Preshun apologizes and it stays there.
-- or he has suspended my rights without warning and is preparing for
a PR action against me without any reason. He does it with the support
of our two direct commercial competitors in his WG. Under these
conditions you will understand that I am not to be giving anything
that enables them to validate a practice of arbitrary exclusion of the
IETF. Today I, whom tomorrow?
-- 
LB
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf