Mr. Chiappa is disingenuous in his letter below. While cogent arguments are indeed appropriate during the development of a document, such arguments are irrelevant during the consensus-determination or "Last Call" process, which only is concerned with the consensus on approving or disapproving the document. The IETF is not considering altering the TLS-authz document at present and Mr. Chiappa knows this. Rather, the TLS-AUTHZ document is undergoing the IETF "Last Call" process. This document is an "individual submission". The TLS Working Group declined to consider the document in its work. In the case of Individual Submissions, a "Last Call" is carried out on the IETF@xxxxxxxx list. The IETF makes decisions by "consensus", which is indicated by the "Last Call" process. The "Last Call" process is where members indicate support or non-support for the document being 'called'. In the case of the TLS-authz document, the last call extends for 4 weeks, from January 14, 2009 until February 11, 2009. More information can be found by reading RFC2026 and associated RFCs on the IETF process. Beside the patent-encumbrance, the TLS-authz document was subject to a number of corrupt practices during its development. The principle author of the TLS-Authz document is Russ Housley, who is also Chair of the IESG, which decides to issue consensus calls. Housley was paid by Co-author Mark Brown, Redphone to produce the document and to file all appropriate IETF documents. There is no dispute about payment, but the amount has not been disclosed. I assert this payment is evidence that Housley was corruptly paid to use his position at the IESG. Although Housley knew of the patent, and apparently worked from patent documents, Housley filed seven (7!) documents with the IETF falsely stating that there were no undisclosed patents. About 6 months after the IESG approved the document the first time, the Patent Office disclosed the existance of the patent application, and Brown/Redphone disclosed the patent to the IETF. IESG member Sam Hartman (MIT, Kerberos project) revoked the approval because of the deception. At about the same time as the first Housley document falsely claiming that there were no patents, Housley and the IESG silenced myself (Dean Anderson) for objecting to other patent non-disclosures. The IESG asserted that RFC3979, updating the IETF process to require patent disclosures, did not apply. The IESG (including Housley) also at this time falsely reported a consensus in the "PR Action" to silence me and another long time IETF participant, JFC Morfin. The email messages indicating consensus in my case were 15 against "PR Action", 2 for. Housely's participated corruptly in the false IESG statement on the PR Action to be false, and Housley also knew that his document required disclosure according to RFC3979. These facts show that Housley and other IESG members acted corruptly on multiple occasions. I believe that Mr. Chiappa is well acquainted with these facts, which are authenticated according to the standards set forth in Lorraine v. Markel on authenticating email evidence and electronic records as evidence. I cannot explain why Mr. Chiappa would suggest that people should offer technical opinions when the process is seeking a go/no-go indication of consensus. Mr Chiappa is a long time participant in the IETF, and is familiar with the IETF processes. It seems to me more likely than not that Mr. Chiappa intends to mislead you. Dean Anderson A long time IETF participant, President of the League for Programming Freedom CEO of AV8 Internet, Inc On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Noel Chiappa wrote: > Dear Mr. Brown: > > I am writing to you (and CC'ing the boards members of the FSF, less one whose > emailbox I couldn't easily locate) in an attempt to explain to you (and > convince you) that 'mass mailings' to the IETF mailing list (or any IETF > list) of the sort the FSF has now attempted twice (once back in October, > 2007; and again this week) don't work, and are in fact, if anything, > _counter-productive_ to the FSF's own goals! > > The IETF 'members' (since IETF membership is rather a loose concept) are not > impressed with numbers, but rather with cogent and well-reasoned arguments - > and an argument becomes neither more cogent, nor more well-reasoned, by > virtue of being repeated 100 times. > > The analogy is not perfect, but you need to approach the IETF more like a > court: a judge - at least, a good one - is not supposed to be influenced by > the number of protestors on the steps of their court; rather, they are > supposed to be influenced by the cogency of the arguments laid before them. > Refiling the exact same amicus brief 100 times (or slightly reworded) isn't > going to have any effect - except to irritate the judge, that they have to > plow through them all. > > Efforts such as the one you have laid out in your recent appeal: > > http://www.fsf.org/news/reoppose-tls-authz-standard > > have exactly the same effect. Many thousands of people, many of whom are as > busy as your board members, have had their inboxes inundated with a hundred > (and more will arrive shortly, no doubt) basically identical messages (either > cut-and-paste, or at best, rephrasings, of that initial press release). The > natural human reaction is to be irritated - especially since we tried to > point out _last time_ you all tried this how ineffective this was. > > I can pretty much guarantee you that it has _no_ positive influence (as the > FSF would view it) effect on the IETF deliberations, and in fact, probably > does active harm to the FSF's _own_ goals. > > That is because the IETF has good reason to react negatively to 'drive-by' > email campaigns. How is what the FSF tried substantially different from > BigCorp X telling everyone who works for it 'we want standard X approved, > please send in email to the IETF list asking for it to be approved'. You > wouldn't think that was good, would you? No, I didn't think so. So if the > IETF allows themselves to be influenced by one mass email campaign, all we > are doing is virtually guaranteeing that we will get more. So we have an > active interest is responding _negatively_ to such campaigns. > > You also need to understand that the vast majority of the IETF are as unhappy > about producing encumbered technology as you are; and in general, all else > being equal, will much prefer an unencumbered solution. In some cases, after > (usually) carefully considering the pros and cons in some detail, we will > produce such a technology; but you can take it as read that we have, after > due consideration, decided that there are advantages that outweigh that > significant disadvantage. The classic example was our use of public-private > key-systems while the RSA patent was still active; the factors were complex, > but included the power of the idea, the fact that the patent had not long to > run, etc, etc. > > If the FSF wants to have the maximal effect, you should prepare the best case > you can make against a particular submission (and simply saying 'encumbered > technology is bad' is _not_ a good case; most of us agree with that, and if > we have decided to go against that, in a particular instance, we must have > had good reasons, and it is _those_ reasons you need to address). Then, send > _one_ copy in to the list, where I can virtually guarantee you that it will > be read more carefully than an avalance of 'me too' messages. > > Noel > > PS: Fellow IETF'ers (CC'd), please, no 'me too' messages to the FSF board > members; if you have a good point I didn't make, please send it along, but > otherwise, let's extend to their emailboxes the same courtesy we are > requesting that they extend to ours. > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf