"trouble maker"

[James Seng]

Philip,

The fact you failed to convience others of your proposal is not a 
problem of IETF. Neither is the role of the chair or the IESG to assist 
you in that regard.

If you did not get rough consensus, you lose. Deal with it.

For your specific issues with DNSEXT, I am not sure how true "WG was in 
favour to fixing the spec" but you should deal with that in the DNSEXT 
or file an appeal to IESG if it is really true. Complaining here dont 
help you in anyway.

For the wg chairs reaction to your company name, while I dont think it 
is appropriate, I dont see why it would prevent IETF to be open and 
inclusive. Everyone here represents himself/herself here and being 
political correct was, AFAIK, not one of IETF core principle.

-James Seng

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> "i.e. there should be no place for the term "trouble maker" in IETF
> documents. "
> 
> I agree, I think that the problem here is that it becomes very easy for a
> partisan chair to further reinforce his power by invoking this phrase.
> 
> DNSSEC has just produced a spec that cannot be deployed. The WG was in favor
> of fixing the spec but the chair as we all know had other ideas.
> 
> 
> Pointing out that the spec was broken resulted in numerous atempts to
> intimidate me by 'reporting me to my management' as a 'trouble maker'. Like
> get a clue, who do you think had asked me to push for the protocol changes
> in the first place?
> 
> 
>>From my point of view the "trouble maker" was a WG chair acting in a clearly
> partisan manner.
> 
> The first time I spoke in a DNSEXT WG the chair in question gave a loud hiss
> as I gave my name and company. Despite being prompted to do so he has
> refused to appologise. The is hardly the behavior I expect from an
> organization claiming to be open and inclusive.
> 
> 
> It is very easy to get a WG to adopt the consensus you want if you are
> prepared to drive away supporters of contrary views. This is what happened
> in ASRG. At the start there were a lot of people interested in
> authentication based approaches. Then I see that any proposal they make is
> attacked on non-technical grounds, the proposers insulted, called 'a snake'
> etc. Pretty soon I am the only person left proposing authentication based
> approaches so having marginalized my position the faction can now dismiss me
> as a 'trouble maker' for proposing ideas that are opposed to the consensus
> they have formed by driving away any supporters.
> 
> 
> I fail to see the point of the IESG. It does not appear to be providing much
> in the way of direction or architectural guidance. It is not even providing
> the most basic guidance one would expect such as "this spec must work for
> all the Internet".
> 
> The Internet has major structural security problems that are likely to be
> tested in the near future. We already have spam senders hijaking unused IP
> address blocks with BGP spoofing, expect them to shortly start hijacking
> used address blocks. The proposal on the table for BGP security meanwhile is
> to replace all routers with new ones that support BGP over IPSEC, a very
> likely occurrence.
> 
> At this point there is no deployable security solution for BGP OR DNS. I see
> little likelihood that the IETF will play a positive role in solving either
> problem.
> 
> 
> 		Phill
> 
> 
> 
>