Subject: Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:36:26 -0400 (EDT)

I cannot post to the IETF list (because of prior misconduct by Housley
and others regarding my previous complaints of failures to file IPR
disclosures on other drafts). I would appreciate it if someone would
repost this to the ietf list.

Following will be my last response to Polk.

Inline:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I think the IETF already sent a very strong signal that it won't
> close its eyes to late disclosures for standards track documents,
> by removing this from the standards track. It seems like double
> jeopardy to use this as an argument against Experimental status
> too - as Tim has said, there's nothing in our rules to block
> publication as Experimental after an IPR disclosure.

"Double jeopardy" is the legal term for twice being at risk for the same
crime.  I suppose it is good to implicitly recognize that something
wrong happened, here.  But the IETF has not explicitly recognized the
gravity of the problem, and therefore has not rehabilitated Housley or
Brown.  Indeed, nothing bad at all seems to have happened to them as a
result of their misconduct; not even an official email censuring their
conduct; no resignation; nothing. (see
http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/People/Housley/index.html). Housley and
Brown very nearly succeeded in circumventing the IETF process by not
properly disclosing the facts according to their obligations and duties.

Their near success and lack of penalty has emboldened Tim Polk to
attempt to circumvent the process again. Consequently, we have yet
another, new violation of the rules:

Tim Polk admits to me privately that he is a close personal friend of
Housley, and that their families vacation together. This is a conflict
of interest in violation of the ISOC conflict of interest policy for
senior staff, because the patent directly and indirectly benefits Brown,
Housley, and Polk by more than $10,000.  

The ISOC has a conflict of interest policy at 
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/conflictofinterest.shtml

The ISOC policy applies to "Trustees, Institutional Officers and Senior
Staff". The IESG members are "Senior Staff", because they are volunteer
senior management employees insured by the ISOC.

Polk says he doesn't need to announce his conflict of interest because
'Dean Anderson is one of the few IETFers who doesn't know of Housley and
Polk's close friendship'

I have also quoted the law of agency to Mr. Polk;  The Law of Agency
defines his duties to an employer. Polk has apparently ignored the law.

It is not in the interests of the IETF or the ISOC to approve this
patented protocol, and nor to effectively ignore the misconduct
involved.

It is not double jeopardy to prevent Housley and Brown from further
circumventing the IETF process.

> > 2. The authorisation extensions have recently been implemented by a free 
> > software library, and problems were found in a couple of areas:
> > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg01518.html
> 
> I agree that these points would need to be addressed by the authors
> while reviewing Last Call comments, but they don't seem critical
> for an Experimental document, do they? Also see
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg01519.html

What does seem critical for an experimental document is real research 
and development. There is none of that here.  This is a proprietary 
commercial protocol promoted by Red Phone Security, IETF Chair Russ 
Housley (employed by Red Phone Security to produce this draft), and the 
cronies of Housley, including Polk.  

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg