What I've seen at postings like
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg02079.html is a recall
of the old IETF legend that people suddenly forget the company they
work for when they post on an IETF mailing list. So, telling you "You
say this because you work for evil Verisign and therefore we should
not listen to you" is unacceptable according to the above statement.
It is a fiction with an important purpose. Without it I would have
to get every post OK'd by my management.
I am a press spokesperson for VeriSign, without the fiction I would have
to worry about each post being reported in the Press as an official
VeriSign position and clear each one through our PR office.
Also many of the suggestions I make have absolutely nothing to do with
the interests of VeriSign. If someone proposes a problem that should be
addressed I may suggest a solution even though there is no VeriSign
interest at stake. I may even be suggesting something that might not
be in the direct interests of VeriSign as a means of arriving at a
better overall spec. So to call them a VeriSign position would be
But is does not and should not prevent people from discussing the
activities or the statements of Microsoft, Cisco, Verisign or AFNIC,
the organizations, at least when it has a direct consequence on a
current IETF activity.
That is something different, that is called decorum. Accusing people
of acting in bad faith is not polite.
You do not have any idea who is acting in bad faith here. Accusing
people of being dishonest because of who they work for is not
If you drag the discussion on this ground, I would say that I'm
skeptical: Microsoft seems to be very eager to have an official IETF
endorsment for Sender-ID. See, for instance,
Don't confuse being keen to have an endorsement by a standards body
with being keen to get an endorsement by the IETF in particular.
Using RFC 3683 to stop someone to express unpopular views or to raise
annoying issues is a bad move, IMHO. I specially wonder what rule
could be applied to rms' posting. The only one I see is
"unprofessional commentary" which is never defined.
Making accusations of bad faith is considered unprofessional. As is
raising an issue repeatedly when it is not possible to deal with it.
Microsoft has been told that they need to adjust the license terms if
the technology is to stay in. The chairs have given a specific date
for providing the statement from the lawyers. Ergo there is nothing
to be done until either we hear from the lawyers or the deadline
expires. There seems to already be consensus that the license terms are
not acceptable as is.