Dear all,
the popularity contest triggered by Harald Alvestrand results into this:
At 15:00 07/10/2005, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Now I, for one, find this annoying. Order 100+ messages to the list,
a host of people declaring
themselves for or against, two petition drives on-line, and all
for an "informal" request for a
PR-Action ? That would all presumably have to be repeated under a
Last Call ? Which will occur at
some point (presumably at least one IESG meeting, or at a minimum 2
weeks) after a formal request ?
At this rate, we'll be wasting list bandwidth on this until Christmas.
I submit it looks like a carefully planed and timed DoS action to
confuse the IESG, divert the IETF community focus, delay the work and
kill the technical reputation of the technical opposition and
commercial competition, when the IESG is to discuss an RFC 3066 bis,
which has major commercial, standardisation and strategic
implications and politically sides the IETF in the current
international debate (http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/10/06/64579.html) .
I will not fall in that DoS trap and add noise to the noise.
- I responded that I needed responses from the IESG to address Harald
Alvestrand's defamatory ad-hominem. I wait for them.
- I formally announce an RFC 3683 PR-action against Harald Alvestrand
for the reasons above. I will finalise and send it to the IESG when I
have received these responses. They will be attached to the PR-action.
I indicated, being the first pretext of an IETF DoS using RFC 3683,
how form this experience this RFC should be applied. I will respect
these suggestions in the case of this PR-action against Harald
Alvestrand. I see no reason for any further public mail on the issue,
except in case of a new DoS.
For the records, an RFC does not remove the legal responsibilities
and equal rights of all the involved parties, nor my moral duty to
share in any appeal or political action to oppose and repel RFC 3066
bis for the cultural war, the standardisation confusion and the
racial/cultural privacy violation risks it creates.
I hope this will reduce the community clutter over this case, and
permit to resume a normal and users interest oriented competent
debate over sole and open technical issues. I trust the judgment of
IESG and think we should all leave the cases to its Members, and to
the rights of appeals to the IESG and IAB. I thank those having a
comment to make it privately. I thank all those (sometimes
unexpected) who privately sent me a nice mail. I will strive to
respond to all. But please remember that I see all this a DoS to
delay the Drafts I announced.
I suggest the IESG finds a way to settle this dispute off-line,
protecting us all from the noise of the two, and possibly subsequent,
conflicting LCs RFC 3683 would lead to.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf