Subject: Re: Current mailbombing is instigated by FSF

From: TSG <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:02:10 -0800

Dean Anderson wrote:
> Unfortunately, Todd's delicate sarcasm is probably lost on most...
>
> The method was determined by the IETF. The last call is a public comment
> period to gage consensus.  There is nothing wrong with the method of the
> FSF in participating. 
Sure there is Dean - let me propose a theory here...

The theory is that the formal agreement to issue the standard was made 
years ago and anything that interferes with that for any reason other 
that 'technical failure of the vetting, interoperability testing, or 
documentation process' constitutes an unethical action of tortuous 
interference in a preexisting contractual relationship between the IETF 
and the Standards Development contact's relying parties and *** MUST *** 
be rebuked by the IETF.

Further, at this point the issue of whether to issue the standard has 
NOTHING to do with whether its patented or not and who owns that patent.

Jorge as the IETF's attorney I suggest that you respond to this.

My statement here is that if that vetting has finished and that instance 
of the vetting has interoperability testing done for it, and that 
testing satisfies the specification the WG agreed on, then the IETF's 
process has been met and the IETF is contractually bound to issue the 
Standard - PERIOD. No ands, no if's and no buts... & no fricking whining 
"but its patented". It just doesnt matter now whether its patented or 
not, the WG wasn't decieved and they agreed to do the work. If the IETF 
has a contract with the WG and its sponsors to issue that standard then 
it must meet that and anyone interfering with the issueance of a 
Technology Standard with a patent as its basis without participating in 
the WG's operations, is interfering with that contracts completion.

Todd

> This rabble rousing about "methods" is nonsense,
> generated by Hallam-Baker, Crocker, Chiappa, and a number of other
> people who are known to be either opposed to the FSF or pro-patent. They
> are trying to make an argument that might be accepted by anti-patent
> people such as Mr. Bormann, while lying about both the IETF process and
> about their real motives.
>
> RFC 2026 defines last call as:
>
> Last-Call - A public comment period used to gage the level of
>       consensus about the reasonableness of a proposed standards action.
>       (see section 6.1.2)
>
> The FSF, and everyone else, has a __RIGHT__ to participate in a PUBLIC 
> COMMENT PERIOD.
>
> Another argument that has been made is that it is somehow invalid to
> oppose the draft for patent licensing reasons.  The existance of patents
> and terms of patents licenses must be disclosed according to RFC3979,
> and according to the assurance made by every author in the preface of a
> draft. So these reasons are proper reasons to oppose a draft.
>
> When pro-patent forces argue that RFC3979 isn't the policy of the IETF, 
> they are merely being dishonest.
>   

> 		--Dean
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, TSG wrote:
>
>   
>> Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>     
>>> http://www.fsf.org/news/reoppose-tls-authz-standard
>>>
>>> While I have a lot of sympathy for the cause, I have very little 
>>> sympathy for the methods.
>>>       
>> I have NO sympathy for the cause.
>>     
>>> Rendering a mailing list that might be useful for actually resolving 
>>> the issue inoperative by a "campaign" is idiotic.
>>> Somebody from I* (the IETF chair may not be the right person this 
>>> time) should call them and explain that this is not the way to win 
>>> friends and impress people.
>>>
>>> Gruesse, Carsten
>>>
>>> PS: kill-filing messages CCed to [email-masked] might help a bit.  
>>> I don't know if the procedures allow to do this at the mailing list 
>>> level.
>>>       
>> Boy do I agree with you - The creation of a standard *** should *** have 
>> nothing to do with IP rights or licensing. The creation of any standard 
>> should JUST be based on whether proper vetting happened and whether the 
>> minimum number of ports was created and formally tested for 
>> interoperability. Anyone - and I mean ANYONE should be able to get a 
>> Standard by making the steps happen.
>>
>> Todd Glassey
>>     
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ietf mailing list
>>> [email-masked]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>>
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>>
>>     
>
>