Patrik,
If you or Ned are not already aware from the context of my disputed
question and my previous posts, I tried private emails and phone calls,
prior to my working group question, which was only a footnote to a longer
list of requested solutions which still seem like entirely constructive
critisism to me. As I stated, they were only met with evasions and
invitations to expensive marketing events.
Is there any way to resolve this situation other than asking IESG
participants to state their own NDA restrictions up front?
Cheers,
James
From paf(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com Sun Apr 8 05:44:33 2001
To: "James P. Salsman" <bovik(_at_)best(_dot_)com>,
ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com
cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: allowable questions (was Re www...)
--On 01-04-08 03.08 -0700 "James P. Salsman" <bovik(_at_)best(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Suppose XYZ corporation makes popular software for IP checksums, but
their algorithms only work for packet lengths less than 20. If Robin Doe
works for XYZ corporation and has voluntarily become an official of
the checksum working group, and that working group has published
documents clearly indicating that checksum algorithms must be able to
accomodate packets of at least size 40, why is it not appropriate to
ask Robin whether XYZ corporation intends to support the requirement?
Ned wrote that it was unappropriate to have that question on the
mailinglist of the wg, and further said you can ask the person in question
in private mail.
You as participant in the IETF have to understand that Robin in your
example clearly have to have an ability to differentiate between the two
roles he has. As chair of the wg and as a spokesperson for the company.
Asking these kind of questions on the wg mailinglist doesn't make the life
easy for Robin.
We have to take care of our wg chairs, as their job is among the most
important ones which are done in the IETF. The people working as wg chairs
doesn't have an easy task. Espeically not "at home" in cases like the one
you describe.
paf