The debate about me is depressing. Only signatories to the PR-action
against JFC Morfin are interested. They are not very credible. Their
doctrine is globalization: internationalization of the medium
(Unicode), localization of the terminal (CLDR) and identification of
linguistic context (RFC 4646). This approach is consistent with the
early structuralist theories of Chomsky. It removes language barriers
between IBM and its foreign clients. It is limited in its capacity and
number of languages. It is unable of multilingualism (all languages
architecturally supported as English). It is incapable to scale
towards a semantic internet. You see it with IDNA.
I wanted to publish multilingual books according the pedagogy of
cybernetic (Wienner, Coufignal, Perret, etc.). It was evident that I
did not have to start from the texts in languages, but from the
semantics to be expressed in languages. Not being a linguist (I do not
speak English: I use Google and Prompt, and I read again so-so) I
committed to the vision of JFC Morfin: the approach of enunciation,
repositories (MDRS), brain to brain interintelligibility, etc. Errors
of the WG-LTU were of principle. The danger was in its vagueness (JFC
Morfin made it corrected), confusion towards ISO 3166 (which was
corrected last summer at ISO) and in its lack of integration of IDNA
(what falls to me after JFC was released from Harald Alvestrand's
I knew that I would be attacked in "IVFT." I thought that this would
be based on technical (and I have communicated very little). Not on
rather ridiculous ad hominems and word games that we should have
passed the age for a very long time. In fact it has been courteous and
very nice on the part of everyone except the "clique" (I think that's
the technical term) of our religious opponents. This is why:
-- Except further provocations I do not intend to appeal
-- I shall not prove my identity separately from all the other IETF
-- I will encourage my friends to publish Drafts for testing a
multilingual and Semantic Internet without pollution, excluding
technical and political pressure,
-- If we or our texts are subject to exclusion for reasons not
technically documented this will be visible to all.
2008/3/22, LB <lbleriot(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>:
I am not sure what should be the "next step" and I wish that all is
clear and transparent in the management of what I take for a censure
for offence of opinion or nationality. I think like somebody else, I
use the technical vocabulary appropriate for my thought. I think in
the same mother tongue as another Frenchman. Is it to protest with Mr.
Newman or with Mr. Presuhn or to appeal directly to the IESG?
I used in vain the RFC-Editor find out what was the rule. I found
nothing. Mr Presuhn says moreover that there are none. I would also
like to know how locate in your archives the cases where the identity
of somebody has been challenged within the IETF in such manner and
what procedures have been initiated.
With my thanks and my best regards
2008/3/21, Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com>:
> Randy has responded quite publicly. I think his position is quite
> clear. So, the next step is up to you.
> At 08:38 PM 3/20/2008, LB wrote:
> >Dear Sir,
> >Like other members of the multilinguistic working list to which I
> >belong, since 2002 I received a copy of the mails exchanged between
> >JFC Morfin and your organization, on IDNs then langtags. And we have
> >often discussed them. I do not thus ignore big matter of this subject
> >As JFC Morfin got everything we wanted except again:
> >(1) that the WG-IDNABIS quickly demonstrates the merits of IDNA or
> >finds a better solution.
> >(2) that the RFC 4646 is respected by the IESG what also calls for the
> >RFC 4646bis underway.
> >I proposed to replace him as an IETF watcher, given the importance of
> >his current work.
> >In two months, I sent a half-dozen of messages and received courteous
> >answers. Of course I expected a possible ostracism. I was prepared to
> >respond with kind understanding. This was the case with Brian
> >Carpenter. He accused me of being JFC Morfin in an humorous but a way
> >a little hurtful. We exchanged and he had the courtesy to apologize
> >willingly and and to inform the IESG about it.
> >I would have done the same with Randy Preshun if contacted me, even
> >impolitely, even after having ignored my question about a significant
> >breakthrough for us he implied, even after that he probably pushed a
> >"trap" by misrepresenting our position and that of ISO. Instead, he
> >dashes into a guerilla of racist censorship against me: it is because
> >of the MLTF ideas that he accuses me of not being me.
> >2008/3/20, Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn(_at_)mindspring(_dot_)com>:
> > > Hi -
> > >
> > > There have been expressions of support, and no objections on this
> > > to the proposed metric (and one off-list objection by JFC Morfin) for
> > > identifying possible sock-puppets of those whose posting privileges
> > > have been revoked pursuant to RFC 3683. So, we're using it.
> > >
> > > We engaged the procedure with three independent working group
> > participants.
> > > All three identified the same email address, which was also
> > identified by the
> > > responsible area director and both co-chairs. Consequently,
> > future postings
> > > from lbleriot(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com will not be delivered, since we
> > this address
> > > is a sock-puppet for JFC Morfin.
> > >
> > > Randy
> > > ltru co-chair
> >You will understand that I have reached an age where I am not
> >impressed anymore and that I have time for a good cause:
> >-- or Randy Preshun apologizes and it stays there.
> >-- or he has suspended my rights without warning and is preparing for
> >a PR action against me without any reason. He does it with the support
> >of our two direct commercial competitors in his WG. Under these
> >conditions you will understand that I am not to be giving anything
> >that enables them to validate a practice of arbitrary exclusion of the
> >IETF. Today I, whom tomorrow?
IETF mailing list