I am willing to work within the IETF system

["Daniel J. Bernstein" <[e-mail]>]

Ran Atkinson claims that I have been ``unwilling to work within the IETF
system.'' I categorically deny this; I spent a year trying to work with
Steve Crocker and was met with resistance at every step.

I quote Stefan Linneman, from a message to the rfc931-users list at the
end of March responding to Steve Crocker: ``Dan Bernstein does not want
to "control the process", he wants to be sure that the final document on
the Identification Server is accurate, complete and something he can
accept... Dan Bernstein has repeatedly written, that all and any input
on the text describing the standard, whether from the IETF or from
elsewhere, will be considered and argued, and, if appropriate, included
in the document. When reading the latest revisions, he also showed quite
clearly, that this is so: several comments from <members of the IETF>
have been accpeted by Dan and were included in these revisions.''

I invite Randall to justify his statement. Where did I ever express my
supposed unwillingness to work with the IETF? Example from history: I
have asked the IESG (Phill Gross can verify this) what it would take to
set up an IETF working group to finish documenting the protocol actually
used on port 113. How can that be considered anything but willingness?

I think the problems I've been having here are with a very small group
of people. To put it differently: If Steve Crocker and Mike StJohns were
to drop dead tomorrow, I don't think *anyone* would be pushing IDENT
forward as a Proposed Standard, certainly not on TCP port 113. In fact I
suspect that TAP would already have been published as a Proposed
Standard if it weren't for Steve Crocker's personal interference.

---Dan