[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IPv6 Security Last Call Initial Questions
Jim Bound writes:
>Its real Ted and I also presented my ideas to Paul Lambert tonight and
>no one or me is saying that strategically in the IETF we should not
>specify confidentiality security. We must do this to have a secure
>Internet. The question on the table is how do we do this tactically?
"We had to shitcan security in order to save it"??
All that's happening here is that IETF is showing it has
slowly evolved to the point where it, like other standards bodies,
has become useless and entrenched, hopelessly fragmented by the
desire for representation in advance of technology and vendor
interest instead of improving the state of the art.
It's too bad IETF didn't manage to learn from the PEM
versus PGP debacle -- if the vendors have their way, it'll be
the same thing all over again.
mjr.
----
PS
[...]
>But being experienced in such a process I realize some will attack me
>and even go to the extreme of offending me. Until this is over if this
>happens too much an individual may find themselves sitting in a court room
>explaining to a judge why they felt they had the right to defame or
>abuse the rights of Jim Bound as an individual in a public forum. And I
>have a set of family and many friends connected to the legal profession
>who will do this for me for free for the right reasons. So please don't
>push it if your in the U.S. anywhere.
I think this kind of stuff is out of line and if you have a
personal problem with someone on the list keep it personal rather than
cluttering the airwaves.
References: