I thank Nick for his intent. However I do not know if ad-hominem
debates are the best for the IETF. As an IETF deliverable user, I
wish the IETF to be pertinent and open to all, in my areas of
concerns. Not to see it hurt. May be will Members want to consider
there are three issues in this first reference to RFC 3683:
- an economic intelligence ad-hominem against me and a diversion IRT
RFC 3066 bis now under IETF review.
- the exposure of an affinity group, making RFC 3774 and 3869 (1.2
IAB Concerns) interesting rereads.
- the need to organise the RFC 3683 so it is not a way to lynch
anyone you want or to destabilise competition.
I said I do not want to add drum beats to drum justice. I only engage
everyone interested (a) to carefully read the WG-ltru Charter first
paragraph (b) to read Harald's ad-hominem (c) to refer to the common
sense propositions I made to Brian Carpenter to avoid justice cases
and commercial feuds to mare the IETF (d) to get acquainted with
networked languages issues.
Networked languages is a new issue for every SSDO. The RFC 3066 bis
still confuses it with written languages issues (if you reread RFC
3869, you noticed IAB does not even list it yet among R&D priorities
and needs for non-commercial funding - like my team manages). The
resulting inadequacies rise major security considerations: Harald
recently apologised for having documented one in a way supporting my
"platform". He documented the main other one, now increased by the
new ABNF, in his RFC 3066 Security Considerations.
jfc
PS. I will certainly leave the IETF by my own move the day I do not
fear anymore private interests might use it as a technical brake for
disloyal commercial purposes, in my R&D and business areas.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf