Re: How IETF treats contributors

Dean Anderson <> Mon, 30 August 2004 22:44 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA10828; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:44:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C1uug-00026W-E0; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:46:10 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C1uhp-0005JA-1K; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:32:53 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C1uW5-0002TD-2Y for; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:20:45 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA09278 for <>; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:20:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C1uXt-0001W1-3u for; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:22:40 -0400
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7UMK3wx030760 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:20:04 -0400
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:20:03 -0400
From: Dean Anderson <>
To: Ted Hardie <>
In-Reply-To: <p0611040bbd59466aa292@[]>
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 2.7 (++)
X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002
Cc:, Hadmut Danisch <>
Subject: Re: How IETF treats contributors
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-Spam-Score: 2.7 (++)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64

Lets take a close look:
In 1998, Jim Miller suggested this.  A few weeks ago, I wrote the 
following. Comments are welcome.

   Independent                                            Paul Vixie (Ed.)
   Request for Comments: XXXX Category: Experimental
   May 28, 2002

                            Repudiating MAIL FROM

Pay attention to the May, 28, 2002 date. The message was sent on June 1, 
2002. (A Saturday).

The claim of Vixie's that "A few weeks ago, I wrote the following." can't 
be sustained. First, the Greens' message was written on June 1, 2002.  
Vixie's "draft" is dated "May 28, 2002", the Tuesday before, not "a few 
weeks ago".

Why would Vixie be motivated to write a draft just a few days before David
Green?  Green, out of the blue, submits his draft on June 1st, 2002. Only
after that does Vixie make his announcment.  And Vixie's claim is
inconsistent and implausible.

But, despite the implausibility of Vixie's claim, Green __actually__
submitted his work first. The first author to get a paper to a journal is
given credit for originating the idea.  __Vixie__ is the only source of
Vixie's claims to prior work.  And that doesn't cut it.  And as President
of the LPF, I know something about the concept of prior work in area of
patents, and such flimsy and inconsistent claims of prior work wouldn't be

Unless we find that Jim Miller or someone else actually published
something, then David Green is the person who originated the idea. Next in
line is Hadmut Danisch who made further refinements and authored the RMX
draft.  There are many others who made smaller contributions.


> Elided below is the actual draft, "Repudiating Mail From".  The citation
> is to the earliest known work (in other words, the earliest place someone
> wrote down a solution based on this idea).  If you would like to suggest
> to the authors of marid-core that Jim Miller ought to be cited as the source
> of the idea from which Vixie's work was derived, I'm sure they will 
> consider it.
> Paul Vixie should still be cited, of course, as many people worked off of
> his formulation of the idea; so should Hadmut Danisch, for the same reason.

Ietf mailing list