RE: on the nature of recent suggestions

[Roy Pereira <rpereira@TimeStep.com>]

Excuse me for budding into your very personal attacks of each other on a
public mailing list, but this line of conversation is wasting my time
and I'm sure everyone else's as well.  Please take your little "I was
there when..." stories off the mailing list into personal email. 

I want to get IPSec product out the door THIS year. 

>----------
>From: 	William Allen Simpson[SMTP:wsimpson@greendragon.com]
>Sent: 	Friday, July 11, 1997 9:21 AM
>To: 	ipsec@tis.com
>Subject: 	on the nature of recent suggestions
>
>> From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
>> You continued, though belated, inputs to the document editing process are
>> appreciated.
>
>"Belated"?
>
>I've posted previous suggestions to the mailing list.  I've sent you
>private notes.  Almost none of them has actually shown up in a document.
>
>I'm glad that these efforts are "appreciated", but a cynic might think,
>based on your current draft output, that is a euphemism for "ignored".
>
>I have seen several others contribute suggestions, both publically and
>semi-privately.  I have reason to believe that there are more private
>suggestions to which I am not privy.  I am not alone in my
>dissatisfication with the current state of the drafts.
>
>Worse, you have refused to add text that multiple folks have requested.
>You have refused to incorporate the results of an explicit straw poll of
>the WG conducted at the last meeting.
>
>None of your documents have been posted to internet-drafts in 4 months.
>Response to many other's suggestions in recent weeks have been answered
>that "current versions" of the drafts address the problems.  Well,
>obviously the commenters are not privy to these "current versions".
>It's the drafts that are "belated"!
>
>
>> However, gratituous assults on my competence with respect to
>> network security are unsubstantiated, as well as unwarranted.
>>
>I am personally insulted that you have taken my carefully written and
>annotated suggestions as a "gratuitous assult".  In the future, I ask
>that you refrain from these comments.
>
>You admitted in writing that you "don't understand".  I merely quoted
>your own words.  Is that too personal?  Do people write documents, or
>are they handed down from a diety on high?
>
>Criticism of your use of obsolete and inapplicable terminology is not an
>assault on your "competence with respect to network security", they are
>a criticism of your writing.  That is indeed warranted, since it is the
>writing for which you have taken responsibility.
>
>Moreover, since in 15 years of DoD ARPAnet affiliation including a long
>term on the Internet Activities Board, you did not manage to complete
>any network security for the Internet, I have nothing other than your
>recent writing on which to judge your competence.
>
>I don't know how you became annointed editor of these drafts.  It was
>done in a secret smoke filled room, and not publically discussed in this
>Working Group.  But until you relinquish the role, you can expect us to
>hold your feet to the fire.
>
>WSimpson@UMich.edu
>    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
>BSimpson@MorningStar.com
>    Key fingerprint =  2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3  59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
>

---

• Prev by Date: Sequence Number for streaming ciphers?
• Next by Date: Comment cutoff! For now.
• Prev by thread: on the nature of recent suggestions
• Next by thread: Sequence Number for streaming ciphers?
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread