Lets look at this as what it may appear to be. No references to anyone
living or deceased is intended in the following story.
Disclaimer - I have been personally named by Mr. Anderson - so take what I
say with a healthy grain of salt.
Lets say you want to put together a club - as long as you play by the
rules of the club you are welcome to come into the clubhouse and play with
its toys, work on the clubhouse, sit down and talk with its members. The
club lets anyone who wants to join come into the clubhouse without any
screening process at all.
Now you let in a person who insists on sitting on the floor and trying to
trip everyone who attempts to enter, either new members or old members.
Old members know about all of the fun games inside so attempt to push
through to get in. New members aren't quite so sure, and may decide to
turn around and either not play at the club, or go to another clubhouse
down the street and start helping them build their clubhouse (not that our
club has any rules about belonging to more than one club mind you)
Your job as the president of the club is to welcome everyone in, including
the person sitting in the door, so you ask her to move inside and start
playing with the toys. She comes in for a bit, takes away a few toys that
people are playing with, then goes back to sitting in the doorway. You
ask a few more times, and can't get her to quit sitting in the doorway.
Now it is time to bring in the Sergeant of Arms. They basically go
through the clubhouse and ask if anyone has anything to say about asking
this person to leave the club so everyone else can enjoy it. After a
period of time (after all, some people think EVERYONE shoudld play with
the toys, and most of the members are concerned because it is VERY
important to allow anyone to come in and play - because that is the most
fun) the hard descision is made to exclude someone from the club.
There is no prosecution, no defense - it is a club after all, we all know
what has been going on. A few of us were tripped up a couple of times
walking in.
That said IETF work is more important than a clubhouse with some good toys
inside it. But it is a place of work, not a place to be throwing around
threats of lawsuits, and demanding that everyone else gets kicked out.
Bill
Mr. Scott,
IANAL. But I know when you hurt someone with others, all have to pay.
2005/10/17, Scott W Brim <swb(_at_)employees(_dot_)org>:
OK, this is getting silly. Have you ever been to an IETF meeting?
You should understand the IETF culture before presuming to advise
governments. The IETF is not a puppet of any government, and even if
it were, that has nothing to do with RFC3683.
I do not understand why you attack me?
I advise Governments on what IETF says.
Not on what the IETF does?
But what IETF does is subject to laws.
And the IETF disclaimer has no value in this case.
The Last Call was reissued precisely to support the rights of the
"accused" (your word). Because it was issued on the wrong list, some
people might not have seen it. It was given *more* exposure time, not
less, in order to be *more* fair, not less. Your implications that
the "rulers" and their lackeys are gaming the system to take away
rights is completely absurd.
"accused" is not my word.
I do not understand what you can name "more fair".
Mr. Dean can claim it was less. And win.
Things are fair or not.
Mr. Dean can claim it is messy and win.
I do not understand what are the rulers and the lackeys?
I am not interested in dicussing RFC that way.
Eduardo Mendez
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf