Re: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action
Dear Russ, 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 -- LB 2008/3/21, Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: LB: Randy has responded quite publicly. I think his position is quite clear. So, the next step is up to you. Russ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi - There have been expressions of support, and no objections on this list, 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] will not be delivered, since we believe 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? -- LB ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-09.txt
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Thanks, Spencer Document: draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-09.txt Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins Review Date: 2008-03-22 IETF LC End Date: 2008-03-24 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: This draft is on the right track for publication as an Experimental RFC. There are issues in the following review identified as technical: that need to be looked at. Comments identified as clarity: are probably nits, but affected the meaning enough that I wanted to include them in the review. Comments identified as nit: are not part of the review but are provided for editor convenience. From idnits 2.08.04: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by RFC 4748: No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt: == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'CFWS' is mentioned on line 338, but not defined -- Possible downref: Undefined Non-RFC (?) reference : ref. 'CFWS' == Unused Reference: 'ASCII' is defined on line 606, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ASCII' == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-05 == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-klensin-net-utf8-07 Comments: 1. Introduction 1.1. Role of this specification Full internationalization of electronic mail requires several capabilities: o The capability to transmit non-ASCII content, provided for as part of the basic MIME specification [RFC2045], [RFC2046]. o The capability to express those addresses, and information related Clarity: which addresses are those addresses? This is the first use of addresses in the document. Guessing that the bullets were reordered without taking this into account - the third bullet says envelope addresses. to and based on them, in mail header fields, defined in this Nit: related to and based on is correct but doesn't parse easily. Suggest s/related to/related to them/ or something similar. document. And, finally, o The capability to use international characters in envelope addresses, discussed in [RFC4952] and specified in [EAI-SMTP-extension]. This document specifies an experimental variant of Internet mail that permits the use of Unicode encoded in UTF-8 [RFC3629], rather than ASCII, as the base form for Internet email header fields. This form is permitted in transmission, if authorized by the SMTP extension specified in [EAI-SMTP-extension] or by other transport mechanisms Technical: isn't this s/transport/transfer/? capable of processing it. 1.2. Relation to other standards This document also updates [RFC2822] and MIME, and the fact that an experimental specification updates a standards-track spec means that people who participate in the experiment have to consider those standards updated. Process: The ID Tracker is showing this draft in Last Call status, but I can't find (in the archive or in my personal folders) any Last Call announcement, which I was looking for, in order to check how Chris explained the downref at Last Call time - I'm expecting that it will be quite entertaining. Has anyone else seen such an announcement on IETF Announce? 2. Background and History The traditional format of email messages [RFC2822] allows only ASCII characters in the header fields of messages. This prevents users from having email addresses that contain non-ASCII characters. It further forces non-ASCII text in common names, comments, and in free text (such as in the
Re: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action
LB == LB [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: LB Dear Russ, I am not sure what should be the next step and I LB wish that all is clear and transparent in the management of LB what I take for a censure for offence of opinion or LB nationality. I think like somebody else, I use the technical LB vocabulary appropriate for my thought. I think in the same LB mother tongue as another Frenchman. Is it to protest with Mr. LB Newman or with Mr. Presuhn or to appeal directly to the IESG? I think the next step should be for you to contribute positevly and constructively to the ltru working group. As I understand it, your posts are moderated. That means that if they are constructive they will get through to the wg. Don't turn this into some story about persecution; help work on internet standards. ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 10:22:01AM +0100, LB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 96 lines which said: 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. For the record, since I was one of the three LTRU participants consulted, and since I'm french, I insist that it has nothing to do with nationality. People from all over the world, not only USAns, think the same about the LB and JFC entities and their dummy organizations. It is not a matter of opinion either. To disagree with opinions require that opinions are expressed. The long and convoluted messages of LBJFC are not even wrong since they are not parsable by an ordinary engineer. (I can testify it is the same thing when they are written in french.) 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. Randy Presuhn clearly said in his first message that there was no precedent (and I add that no reasonable person could have believed that someone was twisted enough to use a sock-puppet.) ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-07
Hi Ben, I believe I've addressed your editorial comments and will send a draft copy to yourself and the other authors (not ietf.org). The updated version will also include Nischal Seth's comment regarding the wording inadvertently precluding OSPF point-to-point over LAN interfaces. With respect to your last comment regarding RFC 2740, we do have an update pending but would prefer not to hold up documents referencing RFC 2740. Given the size of the RFC 2740 BIS draft, it could take some time to make it through the process. Thanks, Acee On Mar 20, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-07 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2008-03-20 IETF LC End Date: 2008-03-26 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. However, I have some editorial comments that should be addressed first. Comments: Disclaimer: I am not an OSPF expert. I assume that others have reviewed this draft for technical correctness. -- General: It would be helpful to see a little more coverage on the motivation and background for this draft. -- Details: Abstract: Please expand OSPF on first use. Section 1.2: The first sentence is confusing and redundant-please rephrase. Also, There could be a requirement... seems like a pretty weak motivation; does the requirement exist or not? Please add more background and motivation for why the requirement exists. Section 1.3, first paragraph: Please expand OSPF on first use. Paragraph 3, last sentence: It's not clear why it might not be acceptable. Policy? Is the support of p2plan inadequate, or uncommon? Section 1.4, first paragraph, last sentence: s/consistent/in a manner consistent (or just consistently) Section 2.3: It's not obvious what is intended here. Is this a complete replacement of section 8.2? A replacement of certain paragraphs? I can infer that you want to replace certain paragraphs by examination, but please be explicit. Also, it would be helpful to mention that this draft updates [OSPF] in the abstract and/or introduction. Section 3.1, last sentence: Can you elaborate on what it means to be cleaner from a deployment standpoint? Section 4: Are there no updates to RFC 2740? ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action
LB: The first step is to appeal to Chris Newman. If you do not find his response satisfactory, then you raise the matter with me as IETF Chair. If you do not find my response satisfactory, then you raise the matter with the IESG. If you do not find the IESG response satisfactory, then you raise the matter with the IAB. The IAB is the end of the appeal chain for this matter. I do not know of any previous situation where two email identities were claimed to represent the same person, and on of those people already had a PR-Action. I hope this can be resolved in a satisfactory manner very soon without invoking all of these steps. Russ me as IETF Chair.At 05:22 AM 3/22/2008, LB wrote: Dear Russ, 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 -- LB 2008/3/21, Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: LB: Randy has responded quite publicly. I think his position is quite clear. So, the next step is up to you. Russ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi - There have been expressions of support, and no objections on this list, 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] will not be delivered, since we believe 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? -- LB ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
