Re: [Cfrg] Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair

Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com> Sun, 22 December 2013 00:10 UTC

Return-Path: <contact@taoeffect.com>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3464A1AE0E1 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 16:10:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.234
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.234 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tADwFV0OzuwS for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 16:10:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a8.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcagg.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C66D31A1F78 for <cfrg@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 16:10:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a8.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a8.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF32D22072; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 16:10:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.3] (ip98-180-48-204.ga.at.cox.net [98.180.48.204]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: contact@taoeffect.com) by homiemail-a8.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 69C00D22070; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 16:10:38 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_392B9E77-7B88-4649-BE75-9EEBDB721393"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>
In-Reply-To: <CEDB64D7.2B148%paul@marvell.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 19:10:33 -0500
Message-Id: <C1CA00CA-9795-405C-8BC8-D84B64DD9E6B@taoeffect.com>
References: <201312212237.rBLMbo5i016331@sylvester.rhmr.com> <5FA05FD6-59A5-40EC-A3F6-A542E37C3224@taoeffect.com> <31D844CE-CCC8-4A4A-90A1-064D7B205E13@taoeffect.com> <CEDB64D7.2B148%paul@marvell.com>
To: Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Cc: Hilarie Orman <ho@alum.mit.edu>, "cfrg@ietf.org" <cfrg@ietf.org>, "irtf-chair@irtf.org" <irtf-chair@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 00:10:45 -0000

On Dec 21, 2013, at 6:55 PM, Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com>; wrote:

> It is embarrassing to me to see the technical debate in the IETF lowered
> to the point that we are removing and rejecting people by their
> affiliation.  The whole point of standards is to bring into a room a group
> of competitors and work through a process to create technical solutions in
> a productive manner.  A continued debate on individuals open affiliations
> is not productive.  We should not proceed with a witch hunt to remove
> Government employees from the IETF.


My position mirror's Daniel Gillmor's almost perfectly. That is to say, I am not in favor of "[removing] Government employees from the IETF".

I thought Daniel's last three paragraphs were poetry, especially the last one (emphasis mine):

At some point, a good-faith Kevin would realize that his position and
ability to lead as co-chair is damaged by the adversarial nature of his
employer to the goals of the research group.  Stepping down from that
position and continuing to contribute helpfully would be a way to
indicate where his allegiance lies in this conflict.  This is not a
purge.  No one is calling for his expulsion from the research group
entirely.

The question is whether Kevin's affiliation has undermined his ability to represent and lead the recommendations made by the IETF.

I believe it has, and I am also hoping to hear from Kevin himself on this. In spite of my support for him stepping down as co-chair because of his affiliation, I don't want to give the impression that I am calling for his "removal" from the IETF, whatever that even means (anyone is free to send emails and recommendations to these lists).

For all I know Kevin is a swell guy who, as Daniel so eloquently put it:

discovered with the rest of us this year that his major institutional
affiliation was working behind his back to subvert the process in which
he was actively engaged


Kind regards,
Greg

--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.

On Dec 21, 2013, at 6:55 PM, Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com>; wrote:

> 
> 
> This debate started as a discussion of the ³Dragonfly² protocol.  The core
> cryptographic mechanism has been reviewed in multiple forums for two years
> and is incorporated into IEEE standards.  It is not an optimal mechanism,
> but was constructed for it¹s IPR considerations to serve a specific
> purpose.  It is useable and secure for the intended use cases and the
> protocol should progress forward.  The discussions on the CFRG list for
> time were productive and contributed to improvements in the protocol.
> 
> The CFRG co-chair¹s support of advancing the protocol has unfairly been
> turned into a witch hunt.  The collateral damage is the stopping a
> potentially useful protocol mechanism.
> 
> It is embarrassing to me to see the technical debate in the IETF lowered
> to the point that we are removing and rejecting people by their
> affiliation.  The whole point of standards is to bring into a room a group
> of competitors and work through a process to create technical solutions in
> a productive manner.  A continued debate on individuals open affiliations
> is not productive.  We should not proceed with a witch hunt to remove
> Government employees from the IETF.
> 
> Anyone with experience in standards activities should already be wary of
> motives that drive each of the contributions.  I¹d rather have my
> competitor (or in this case the NSA) in the room to get whatever reading I
> can on their positions on our technical work.  We will always have to
> second guess the motives of individuals bringing work into our open forums.
> 
> Paul
> 
> Paul A. Lambert
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/21/13, 3:29 PM, "Tao Effect" <contact@taoeffect.com>; wrote:
> 
>> On Dec 21, 2013, at 6:17 PM, Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>; wrote:
>>> Should not the choice of an employer reflect on a person's competence?
>> 
>> Sorry, thinking a bit more about that question, I think the answer is
>> "no, not necessarily, but maybe in some circumstances."
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing
>> with the NSA.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Dec 21, 2013, at 5:37 PM, Hilarie Orman <ho@alum.mit.edu>; wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Take it as a challenge, is the IETF smarter than NSA or any other
>>>> organization with ulterior motives?  Can the IETF make sound technical
>>>> judgments based on written documents?
>>> 
>>> Speaking for myself only, an organization's ability to make sound
>>> ethical choices impacts my ability to take it seriously.
>>> 
>>> What sort of people does the IETF/CFRG place in positions of authority?
>>> 
>>> Those types of decisions play a significant role in defining what an
>>> organization is, and what it does.
>>> 
>>>> and choose leaders based on their competence and not on their
>>>> employment.
>>> 
>>> Should not the choice of an employer reflect on a person's competence?
>>> 
>>> Careful now, we're deadly close to reaching Godwin's Law. ;-P
>>> 
>>> - Greg
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
>>> sharing with the NSA.
>>> 
>>> On Dec 21, 2013, at 5:37 PM, Hilarie Orman <ho@alum.mit.edu>; wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Is the CFRG co-chair the only person in the CFRG who has associations,
>>>> proclaimed or covert, with an organization intent on undermining the
>>>> standards process?  I seriously doubt it.  Then why trust anything
>>>> from any part of the IETF?  Because it is an open process with input
>>>> from a worldwide community.  That open process provides the resilience
>>>> against attack.
>>>> 
>>>> Take it as a challenge, is the IETF smarter than NSA or any other
>>>> organization with ulterior motives?  Can the IETF make sound technical
>>>> judgments based on written documents?  If you don't believe this is
>>>> possible, then by all means, start the purges.  Otherwise, step up to
>>>> the plate, be part of the evaluation-on-the-merits process, and choose
>>>> leaders based on their competence and not on their employment.
>>>> 
>>>> Hilarie
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Cfrg mailing list
>>>> Cfrg@irtf.org
>>>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cfrg mailing list
>>> Cfrg@irtf.org
>>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>> 
>