Yes, private ad hominem attack warnings is one of Dave's favorite games
with supposed ietf list management rules (which were never properly
introduced and are thus not active except for those people who explicitely
agreed). It must be his private agenda to shut up everyone who does not
agree with his positions... :)
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Hector Santos wrote:
Dave,
I find this COMPLETELY unacceptable. I did not write any "ad hominem
attacks" and stated a OPINION about the very serious LEGAL issues that could
occur.
I find it extremely rude of you and incomprehensible that you would try to
SHUT me up from what YOU don't wish to here.
I did nothing wrong and I stated a very honest view of the IPR issue. The
DKIM systems NEEDS work and it behooves me to believe that time and money is
being spent to resolve its issues when concurrent IPR claims are being made.
Yes, to me, this is "playing games."
This was a BIG mistake of you to sent me this "SHUT UP" private message and
I believe it of the PUBLIC GOOD to know what you trying to do.
Unbelievable. I did nothing wrong. I don't need this. I'm warning you.
DON'T TRY TO CENSOR ME. It will a major mistake.
---
Hector Santos, CTO
WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server"
support: http://www.winserver.com
sales: http://www.santronics.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net>
To: "Hector Santos" <hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com>
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 8:25 AM
Subject: conduct on the list
Hector,
This list operates under the rules published at
<http://mipassoc.org/mass/ietf-list-rules.html>.
They do not permit ad hominem attacks. Pursuing the supposed motives of a
person or organization constitutes an ad hominem attack.
For example, declaring that someone is playing games is ad hominem.
This is a warning. Do not make statements of this flavor on the list.
/Dave and Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Hartman" <hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>
To: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net>
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:43 AM
Subject: Re: IPR disclosures?
The only issue I can see the BOF discussing is requirements
on IPR that would need to be met for people to feel the
technology could be deployed. I don't know if that
would be useful or not.
Well, I'm not a IETF vet so I don't pretend to know your procedures. But
I
will speak my mind.
The technology is, how should I put it without offending anyone?
"half-baked" and many of us, the IETF public, including myself, are doing
work to resolve its problems and weaknesses.
What "bothers" me is if an organization is going begin to play games and
place IP restrictions on ideas the IETF public worked out for them.
I find myself holding back a lot and if Yahoo and/or Cisco are going go
be
screwing around with IP issues here, well, then maybe they should do
their
own R&D on it.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net