Yesterday I proposed to take advantage from my experience for the
good of the IETF. I used "filibustering" as what I had been engaged
into. This was a big Franglish confusion. I explained it and
apologised for the inconvenience in a mail to Sam Hartmann. I asked
help to find a correct term. I received a few supportive comments
(and one BS but funny). I thank the formers, all the more than they
were unexpected!
- thank you for confirming I am not "filibustering", but that Harald
is (thanks for the examples). As someone put it "Mr. Smith was in the IETF".
- May be "smart activism" as someone else suggested is a good
description? I do not like "e-guerillero", but sometimes .. "active
influence" is also interesting?
- I am NOT engaged in any feud against Harald and will support NONE.
I like this "Mr. Smith was in the IETF" quote, because Jefferson
Smith was a dedicated person who tried, as I am sure Harald does. I
do not oppose his analysis, but his lack of _deeper_ analysis and
generalisation leading to layer violation and scaling inability. I
also oppose a strategy of influence to force everyone into it. But,
(a) his doctrine seems to root in RFC 2130 - recently confirmed by
another IAB workshop on IDNs; (b) he was clear on his intents and got
supported by the IESG (RFC 3935). There is NO ad hominem (at least on
my side) but a fundamental architectural difference between
unilaterally centralised and multilaterally distributed visions of
the network interintelligibility. I note that in a comment Harald
shown IMHO that we could totally agree. I accept I tease him: is that
not the best answer to defamation and name-calling? Better than suing
him! (The IESG/ISOC would be the one to sue for its drum justice).
- as an IETF _user_ my interest is in the quality and in the
adequation of the IETF deliverables in my areas of interest and
competence. I am ready to do and to accept much for good deliverables
and for their source. I was removing myself from the IETF, now I am
reasonably protected in my work from the RFC 3066 Bis initial
confusion and the world is not bound to the IDNA error anymore.
Unless an unexpected IAB positive response to my appeal, Harald's
action is the only reason why I am still here. Those who dislike me
can thank him!
As a general comment: from the mails I receive I am surprised that
some IETF (often high level) participants do not dare to speak-up and
_fear_ the IETF immanent "ruling powers" and the "community correct".
Two want me as their "lighting rod" (first request of that kind was
at the beginning of the RFC 3066 Bis saga), several others as a
"fuse", even one as his "Robin Hood"! I do not think this is good. A
PESCI priority? What is puzzling is when someone aggressively posts
against me and then sends me a "targeted" long mail of support for
everything and more .... or when another one mails me a broadside
against what he wrote on the public list! The most concerning are the
mails from low-grade-English foreign lurkers, who wishes I represent
them ... and the quality of their online resumes. I am honored, but
perplex at the correct solution to bring them. The ethic/user TF I
plan will certainly be multilingual.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf