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
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
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.
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
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
--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
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
--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
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
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
[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
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:
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 !?!
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
--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
--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
-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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
-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
|
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
[...]
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
[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
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
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
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:
| -
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
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
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
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
61 matches
Mail list logo
