Robert, I am not aware of an IETF requirement that participants on WG mailing lists use their legal names or make their real-world identities publicly verifiable.
More importantly, the expectations regarding professional conduct apply equally to everyone participating in the WG, irrespective of whether their real-world identity is known. I don't think questions about the real-world identity of participants, whether they can be found on social-media platforms, or speculation about whether a participant is a bot are relevant to the technical discussion in TEAS. What matters for purposes of the WG discussion is that participants adhere to the same expectations for professional and respectful engagement. The broader question of whether the IETF should have different identity requirements for mailing-list participation is outside the scope of TEAS and, if someone wishes to pursue it, should be raised in an appropriate IETF-wide forum. For the ongoing thread, let's keep the discussion focused on the technical issues and avoid characterizing the individuals involved. Regards, Pavan On Sat, Oct 3, 2026 at 3:21 PM Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Franklin, Pavan and Oscar, > > So while we are at bashing some direct (yet IMHO pretty polite) > expressions posted to the list allow me to ask quite related question which > actually may have triggered those. > > What is your take on posting anonymous emails to this and other IETF > mailing lists ? > > Specifically for an author who claims 38 years experience in the IETF > community sending emails from alias "[email protected]" and signing as > "Ran" to me with only 30 years of IETF community participation looks > completely anonymous. > > Is it proper to hide and not being able to be looked up on linked in when > participating in IETF WG discussions ? > > Note that last time I checked in IETF we are all individuals presumably > humans. What if tomorrow someone will write a bot which would be named as > John, Mike or Jenny and will keep posting his points of view claiming > cumulative experience of the IETF community of a few decades ? Would humans > still be able to play any role if there would be not one but 100 or 1000s > of such bots posting from different global locations ? > > Maybe what I am asking is a bit outside of TEAS WG charter, but since the > topic surfaced here we may as well think over possible reasons for it. > > Kind regards, > Robert Raszuk > https://www.linkedin.com/in/robertraszuk/ > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 6:56 PM Franklin Ferreira de Lima < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Professional Conduct, Engineering Excellence, and Sustainable Goals in >> our Working Group >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> In alignment with the recent guidance from Pavan and Oscar, I would like >> to reinforce our shared responsibility to maintain a strictly professional, >> respectful, and constructive environment in our working group discussions >> regarding the TE draft. >> >> Engineering and the internet give us immense power to collaborate and >> build global solutions. However, this power must be backed by education, >> mutual respect, and accountability. As we evaluate technical proposals, our >> focus should remain entirely on factual substance and objective analysis, >> ensuring that we challenge ideas constructively rather than addressing >> individuals. >> >> Furthermore, our commitment to engineering excellence must go hand in >> hand with conscious consumption and sustainability. By guiding our >> technical goals toward optimization and responsible resource utilization, >> we align our work with the path of perfection and efficiency. >> >> Let us continue working together under these high standards to achieve >> the best possible outcomes for our project. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Franklin >> >> >> Franklin Ferreira de Lima >> >> Em sex., 2 de out. de 2026, 13:30, Vishnu Pavan Beeram < >> [email protected]> escreveu: >> >>> A quick reminder to keep our discussions aligned with the IETF’s >>> expectations for professional and respectful conduct, as outlined in RFC >>> 7154. >>> >>> In particular, please avoid comments that could be perceived as >>> dismissive, condescending, or personally directed at others. It is >>> perfectly appropriate to challenge technical claims, ask for evidence, or >>> question assumptions, but please do so in a way that addresses the >>> substance of the discussion rather than the individuals involved. >>> >>> Keeping the discussion factual, constructive, and respectful will help >>> ensure that everyone can participate effectively and that we maintain a >>> productive environment for the WG. >>> >>> Thanks for your cooperation. >>> - Pavan and Oscar >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 11:40 AM John Drake <je_drake= >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Comments inline. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2026 at 01:17:31 PM PDT, RJ A < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > On Sep 28, 2026, at 11:15, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Hi Ran, >>>> > >>>> > While I do support adoption of this TE extension for ISIS I do not >>>> agree that current discussion can be named as "odd". >>>> > >>>> > See IETF rules and guidelines perhaps work decent to define >>>> conditions when this or that draft is proposing an extension which sits >>>> already in the working group charter. >>>> > >>>> > Here this proposal is defining a completely new technology "power >>>> saving by network auto reconfiguration using TE" and by this alone touches >>>> work residing in number of other working groups in IETF. >>>> > >>>> > On the other hand we can't and should not extend protocol to only fit >>>> one design/architecture as changing such extension while deployed out in >>>> the wild is very costly - especially for architectures which to work well >>>> do requires a massive almost network wide upgrade. >>>> >>>> I believe that you believe that. >>>> >>>> Based on my ~38 years of IETF experience, and having personal >>>> experience with network engineering for a multi-continent broadband ISP, I >>>> disagree with your characterization. >>>> >>>> > >>>> > JD: Impressive. It's not well known, but I solved world hunger and >>>> invented cold fusion. >>>> > >>>> >>>> This is a minor, almost trivial, extension to very well-understood >>>> Traffic Engineering (TE) mechanisms. Further, I disagree that this >>>> proposal narrowly fits “one design/architecture” and disagree that any >>>> uninterested operator would need to upgrade anything. >>>> >>>> > >>>> > JD: This two statements are completely contradictory >>>> > >>>> >>>> Operators that choose to use the mechanism are perfectly capable of >>>> making their own cost/benefit analyses. Further, the operators I’ve spoken >>>> with disagree with the claim that any “massive almost network wide upgrade” >>>> would be required. >>>> >>>> > >>>> > JD: Were these Operators folks you met in an elevator or at a bus >>>> stop? >>>> > >>>> >>>> Yours, >>>> >>>> Ran >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Teas mailing list -- [email protected] >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Teas mailing list -- [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
