Subject: Re: What direction is the IETF heading ? That of Common Sense

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 14:44:44 -0500

While Allisat's ideas may be "far reaching and very broad in their
ramifications", they are inherently political statements.  He is using the
IETF list (and several other lists I'm on) to spout his personal political
beliefs, stir controversy, etc. in the hopes of converting people.  What
these ideas are, or whether anyone here agrees or not, is irrelevant.

Bob has not asked for protocols to implement his ideas.  This is the
Internet Engineering Task Force, not the Internet Political Task Force or
the Internet Citizens-Rights Task Force.  If he wishes to petition the ISOC
to get either of the latter created, more power to him.  When he has
protocols he needs designed or reviewed, he'll be welcome with the IETF.

Purely political discussions with no valid engineering content do not belong
in the IETF.  Period.  Bob has, both on and off this list, shown complete
disregard for this basic concept, even after several dozen people have
pointed it out.  Therefore, in the interests of performing the IETF's
chartered job, he has been banned again in accordance with posted IETF
policy.  This cycle will continue until he has learned how to find the
appropriate forum for his ideas.

S

     |          |         Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE #3723
    :|:        :|:        NSA, Network Consulting Engineer
   :|||:      :|||:       14875 Landmark Blvd #400; Dallas, TX
.:|||||||:..:|||||||:.    Pager: 800-365-4578 / 800-901-6078
C I S C O S Y S T E M S   Email: [email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Cc: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>; Jim Fleming <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Sue Leader <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Roeland M.J.
Meyer <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
<[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Michael Sondow <[email-masked]>; Milton
Mueller <[email-masked]>; Matt Crawford <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
<[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Karl
Auerbach <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Jonathan
Zittrain <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
<[email-masked]>; Jim Bound <[email-masked]>; Jay Fenello
<[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>;
Gordon Cook <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Gene Marsh
<[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Esther Dyson
<[email-masked]>; Ellen Rony <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
<[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Cyndi Jung
<[email-masked]>; Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>; Ben Edelman
<[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
<[email-masked]>; A.M.Rutkowski <[email-masked]>; U.S. Secretary of
State <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
<[email-masked]>
Date: Saturday, June 05, 1999 13:58
Subject: Re: What direction is the IETF heading ? That of Censorship

>Constantine and all,
>
>  I don't believe that BOb or anyone is suggesting not getting on with
>serious work at all.  I don't necessarily agree with you opinion of Bob,
>though I do understand that Bob has his own opinions that are sometimes
>not shared universally.  Hell we all have those sort of opinions from time
>to time, don't we?  I don't believe that it is proper of right to just ban
him
>for that reason as you seem to be indirectly indicating here.  Sure it is
>good practice to stay on subject and on topic on some mailing lists
>such as some of the IETF lists.  But one should be open enough to
understand
>that some of those topics and subjects are far reaching and very broad in
their
>ramifications....
>
>Constantine Protopapas wrote:
>
>> Look...This is getting on my (and i think on other peoples) nerves.. Bob
>> Allisat is someone NOT to be taken very seriously and someone who has
caused
>> SO many good people to unsubscribe from the list. If we are "technocrats"
>> for Bob Allisat, then so be it; i, for once haven't seen a list so open
as
>> the IETF. If Allisat thinks that we are "technocrats" he is free to join
his
>> like-minded people at Cybermind and LEAVE US ALONE TO DO SOME SERIOUS
>> WORK!!!
>>
>> Constantine Protopapas
>> Systems/Network Engineer
>> e-mail: [email-masked]
>> Tel:            ++301-6801391
>> mobile:         ++3097-598043
>>
>> ---     "...Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to
>> suffering..."
>>         STOP THE KILLING IN YUGOSLAVIA!!
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> > Sent: Saturday, June 05, 1999 9:56 AM
>> > To: Bob Allisat
>> > Cc: Jim Fleming; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Sue
>> > Leader; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Roeland M.J. Meyer;
>> > [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> > [email-masked]; Michael Sondow; Milton Mueller; Matt Crawford;
>> > [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Karl
>> > Auerbach; [email-masked]; Jonathan Zittrain; [email-masked]; Jim
>> > Bound; Jay Fenello; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> > [email-masked]; Gordon Cook; [email-masked]; Gene Marsh;
>> > [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Esther Dyson; Ellen Rony;
>> > [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> > Cyndi Jung; Brian E Carpenter; Ben Edelman; [email-masked];
>> > [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> > [email-masked]; A.M.Rutkowski; U.S. Secretary of State;
>> > [email-masked]
>> > Subject: Re: What direction is the IETF heading ? That of Censorship
>> >
>> >
>> > Bob and all,
>> >
>> >   I am afraid I have to agree with Bob here....
>> >
>> > Bob Allisat wrote:
>> >
>> > > "The IETF discussion list serves two purposes. It furthers the
>> > development
>> > > and specification of Internet technology through discussion of
technical
>> > > issues. It also hosts discussions of IETF direction, policy, and
>> > > procedures. As this is the most general IETF mailing list,
considerable
>> > > latitude is allowed."
>> > >
>> > >  When I wrote the following it was well within this charter as a
>> > >  sincere discussion of IETF direction, policy and procedures.
>> > >  'I would like to echo Rahmat M.Samik-Ibrahim's statement that ...
>> > >  "There is a need for a publicly recorded feedback mechanism for
>> > >  the Internet Standard Process." I would also like to go further
>> > >  and add that a control mechanism is even more critical than mere
>> > >  feedback and oversight. We have to wrestle CONTROL out of the hands
>> > >  of the technicians and place it in the trust of elected citizens.
>> > >  Who are highly more likely to act in the general good of the public
>> > >  than this small band of corporate financed technocrats. In fact much
>> > >  of the technological foot dragging and slowing of change and net
>> > >  evolution vcan be directly traced to the IETF and it's reluctance
>> > >  and inability to deal with recent Internet developments. A situation
>> > >  that is not only highly explosive but alos extremely
unsatisfactory.'
>> > >
>> > >  I kindly request that Fred Baker, who has excluded my writing from
>> > >  the IETF discussion list, re-instate my access. I am pursuing topics
>> > >  regarding the reform of the IETF into an organization controlled by
>> > >  citizens not by experts. Naturally such proposals threaten the power
>> > >  base of established technocrats such as Mr. Baker. Which leads to
>> > >  actions such as my silencing.
>> > >
>> > >  Respectfully,
>> > >
>> > >  Bob Allisat
>> > >
>> > >  Free Community Network ... [email-masked] __ http://fcn.net
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jeffrey A. Williams
>> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>> > E-Mail [email-masked]
>> > Contact Number:  972-447-1894
>> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>> >
>> >
>
>Regards,
>
>--
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>E-Mail [email-masked]
>Contact Number:  972-447-1894
>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 14:08:52 +0100

Stephen and all,

> these ideas are, or whether anyone here agrees or not, is irrelevant.

  I am not sure the term "Irrelevant" is applicable here in this context
Steve.  The IETF has been a somewhat political entity on some technical
issues for some time now, which is what I was eluding to, and Richard Sexton
also pointed out in his response to this post as well.  Most especially the
IETF has been involved in political issues as they relate to technical
issues in the area of Encryption for several years now.  I am well aware
of this as I have participated in that endeavor with the IETF for over 3 years
now on the TLS and the SSL mailing lists as well as IPSEC.  So to make
a statement that Bob is out of line in this regard is not really true in a
broad sense as it relates to the IETF mailing lists.  This much is very
clear and is a matter of public record currently, based on many working
groups mailing lists, three of which I have just mentioned.

  I would like to also clarify my feelings in that I would agree that there are
no
political solutions to technical problems.  But, there are technical solutions
to SOME political problems as they relate to protocols and the work of the
IETF.  This much is certainly well known.  There are also political effects
of technical solutions or designs in protocol design as well.  IPv6 would
be one such example.  So would TLS, BTW.  This too is also well known
as well.  There are many others, too many to mention in this post.

> protocols he needs designed or reviewed, he'll be welcome with the IETF.

  It is not quite that black an white anymore Steve.  I can certainly understand

where you are coming from here as I too dislike the political overtones that
are part of any technical protocol design potentially.  I have faced this myself

more time than I care to even think about.  But it is not reasonable to
deny that political implications don't exist.  That is pure folly, today.

> in the IETF.  Period.

  Bob is not suggesting that and neither am I or was Richard in his post
in response to your reply here.

> Bob has, both on and off this list, shown complete

  Well, this may be one way of dealing with what may be a perceived
problem with what Bob has to say, but it is one that puts the IETF in
an ever increasing bad light.  Using reason and logic to be more convincing
with Bob might be more reasonable rather than banning him.  None the
less, I still feel that his banning was not warranted in this instance, and
should
therefore be reversed.

Regards,

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 14:08:52 +0100

Stephen and all,

Regards,

---

From: "Michael H. Warfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 18:51:08 -0400 (EDT)

Sigh...  Ok...  Since this doesn't appear to be dying out I might
as well make yet another contribution to the degredation of the signal to
noise ratio.

> less, I still feel that his banning was not warranted in this instance, and

	I'm going to quote ONE SMALL passage from Bob's monolog on June 2 that
started this whole mess (this time).

Bob Allisat wrote:
] The sooner we depose the IETF and all other false monopolies from
] their positions of sole authority and unquestioned power the sooner
] the medium begins responding to real, grassroots needs. Not merely
] aping the requirements of the few corporations the IETF boys are all
] principles or major share holders in. Basically the message is this:
] fuck the IETF if it continues to fuck us. It's just that simple.

	He want to say that his basic message is "fuck the IETF if it
continues to fuck us."  This was that basic theme of his entire lengthy
message to the IETF mailing list.  Then he wanted to claim censorship
when we don't want to listen to his disruptive rabble rousing that
contributes nothing to the ongoing business of the IETF?  (Preaching to
overthrow does not contribute to the ongoing activities.)  His goal appears
to be to disrupt, not to contribute.

	What so called proposals he has put for in the past have, at
best, been ill-thought-out pie-in-the sky pipe-dreams that he wanted
everyone else to bow down to, work out, and impliment.  He tried to take
the position of "idea rat" and expect everyone else to do the work, and
seemed insulted when many of us asked him to come up with technical proposals
(technical proposals seem to be beneath his dignity) and ignored him when he
faile to.  At worst his messages have been lame attempts to disrupt the
ongoing standards process.  His latest railing against the IETF was nothing
but vindictive spite with no value at all.  He knew what the response would
be and he got it.  He has no claim to suprise or to claim foul at the
penalty.

	It looks to me like he has gone out of his way to get banned.  He
can't claim ignorance (Ok...  He can...  And be pretty convincing at that).
Seems like he did this deliberately so he could weep crocodile tears about
how bad the big bad censors at the IETF are.  I'm sorry but the hair shirt
just doesn't fit.  By his own actions, he has demanded to be banned.  By his
own words, he want to silence the standards process and replace it with his
ideal of the way things should be done (how else would you categorize his
attempts to overthrow what he sees as a dictatorial conspiracy).  Fine,
he wants to be banned (he could easily avoid it if he wanted to) let's go
ahead and feed his martyr psychosis and give it to him.  Then we can just
ignore the ongoing hypocracy in his claims of censorship.

	THIS is what he asked for.  He asked to be banned so he could
cry censorship.  So be it.  It's a willfull self-inflicted injury.

> > C I S C O S Y S T E M S   Email: [email-masked]

	[Additional past discussion censored...]

	Mike
-- 
 Michael H. Warfield    |  (770) 985-6132   |  [email-masked]
  (The Mad Wizard)      |  (770) 925-8248   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9      |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471    |  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

---

From: "Michael H. Warfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 18:51:08 -0400 (EDT)

Bob Allisat wrote:

	Mike

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 00:15:18 -0700

Jeff:

I'm told that the direction the IETF is taking is that of Censorship of
Important Ideas. With all due respect to those who hold such important
ideas, it is my humble opinion that there is no requirement that the IETF
be the conveyance of that discussion, and that they indeed - however
important - are not the subject of this list as noted in
http://www.ietf.org/maillist.html. I am forced to request that this
discussion be taken elsewhere.

You have the option, as has been frequently noted, of creating a forum for
the discussion, and holding it to your heart's content. This is therefore
not censorship of the discussion, but of the discussion in this context.
This is the wrong place. Go away.

Fred

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 00:15:18 -0700

Jeff:

Fred

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 23:52:40 +0100

Fred,

  I agree with you, and am not claming censorship.  That was claimed
by Bob, not I.  All I was saying that to ban someone for espousing
an idea on a public mailing list, is a bit extreme.  I also made it quite
clear I thought that going too far afield on a subject or topic on any
mailing list if both bad form and improper as well.

  I hope that this has clarified the situation sufficiently.

Regards,

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 23:52:40 +0100

Fred,

Regards,