Guys, guys, guys. Steve: making reference to a person's company concentrates too much on the personal. Please be more careful.
Brian, Eric: If you meant "some individual contributors who I happen to know and discuss this with", saying "my colleagues" was subject to misinterpretation, especially in light of this recent energetic exchange. --Sandy, speaking out for civility as wg chair ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Eric Osterweil [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 11:17 AM To: Stephen Kent Cc: [email protected] list Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-03 On Nov 9, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Stephen Kent wrote: > At 1:27 AM -0500 11/8/11, Brian Dickson wrote: >> ... > >> I do not support adoption of this document in its current form. >> >> The main reasons have to do with fundamental aspects which at a high >> level have been addressed by my colleagues, > > so, this is a Verisign critique, provided by you, Eric, and Danny? Steve, This is a ridiculous question, and the implication is a completely false characterization of my involvement. For the record: I am participating as an individual only. Eric _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Brian Dickson [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 3:07 PM To: Stephen Kent Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-03 On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Stephen Kent <[email protected]> wrote: > At 1:27 AM -0500 11/8/11, Brian Dickson wrote: > > ... > > I do not support adoption of this document in its current form. > > The main reasons have to do with fundamental aspects which at a high > > level have been addressed by my colleagues, > > so, this is a Verisign critique, provided by you, Eric, and Danny? Respectfully, Stephen, I would ask that you not infer anything along these lines. The IETF is very clear on participation being an individual activity, regardless of $day_job. In addition to this _not_ being the case, I _personally_ consider this both highly inappropriate at a professional level, and bordering on _ad_hominem_, something that really has no place in WG mailing-list discussions. I would ask that you seriously consider whether an apology for your comment is appropriate. As for "colleague", I meant within the WG, as in "collegial". If I had meant to say "co-worker", I would have said "co-worker". Any similarity between our concerns is entirely due to similarity in operational experiences in a variety of venues, at a variety of $day_jobs. I'll address the content-oriented portion of your email in a separate message. Brian - not using any email-address that would suggest affiliation - _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
