[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Censure of Mr. Simpson

I have been privately asked not to reply in detail.  Thank you all for
your public and private support.

In support of Perry's refutation, I will note that this _personal_ animus
and _private_ determination of "consensus" was somehow arrived at
_before_ I submitted my very first "intentionally disruptive" draft to
this WG, as evidenced by following excerpt:

    From: Paul_Lambert-P15452@email.mot.com
    Date: 16 Jan 95 13:25:00 -0600
    To: Internet-Drafts@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
    Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-ah-00.txt
    Message-Id: <M16589.001.im5r0.1.950116202727Z.CC-MAIL*/OU=SECCG/OU=AZBH/PRMD=MOT/ADMD=MOT/C=US/@MHS>

    Dear Sirs,

    As working group co-chair of the IETF IP Security Working Group I am writing in
    regarding to four recently submitted Internet Drafts (I-D) from Bill Simpson
    and Perry Metzger.  The I-D guidelines indicate that you have some control over
    the naming of these documents.  The documents currently have been submitted as:

        draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-00.txt
        draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-des-cbc-00.txt
        draft-ietf-ipsec-ah-00.txt
        draft-ietf-ipsec-ah-md5-00.txt

    I would like to request that the names of these I-Ds not include "ietf-ipsec"
    and that the drafts be identified by the author of the document:

        draft-simpson-esp-00.txt
        draft-simpson-esp-des-cbc-00.txt
        draft-simpson-ah-00.txt
        draft-simpson-ah-md5-00.txt

    or  draft-metzger- ... etc.

    An editing team of six people is currently generating a single document that
    will cover the techniques contained in these drafts.  This document will be
    published this week and represents the "consensus" version of the above
    mechanisms.  Creating new "ipsec-esp" and "ipsec-ah" documents does not
    represent the working group direction or work items.

    The strength of the IETF process is based on allowing a diversity of
    contributions and opinions to be expressed through the I-Ds.  Bill and Perry
    are free to submit I-D drafts, but their current timing and approach is
    intentionally disruptive to the working group.

I will also note that no such "single document" was ever posted and may
never have existed.  The WG ultimately overturned the Chair's decision
in this matter.

Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu
          Key fingerprint =  2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3  59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2