IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt> (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

SM <sm@resistor.net> Wed, 09 May 2012 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9457811E8079 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2012 10:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.582
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 69ykzxtlAMmz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2012 10:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E07C11E807F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 May 2012 10:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q49HBgmg028223; Wed, 9 May 2012 10:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1336583511; i=@resistor.net; bh=C/vbnyp2Z0kSl5dVAV+6EydK8N8PQssw1S0AgOWGwhU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=PP0JiBbT3iSMVZ+1Em8mQhvaTFHPvTxw/gDaYhW8RJErO6N1K6AFViXLkVGRL0SEP VBCLRPrvXwsyvQgSppnjIvYCWZJzcK7UFP+8mGnQJH5zcfv7sUZjDl1WjhJ2ESzpLb wVnrBAR+pKCYVUQoBONue+k4dodis8Q8Eo3cByTA=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1336583511; i=@resistor.net; bh=C/vbnyp2Z0kSl5dVAV+6EydK8N8PQssw1S0AgOWGwhU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=umcn2Sem8S8DVKRXLVWKXylDeM1tA5a+WTQflK5ZzVDaNmAZNSWaVLnrbsgEAPd0v 7ZFpM2hFMazTodFwT8kqnAARVA39WOOahIiu/4pOPqk2t9jPIqB1Jof1ZsZwYWe6Kt 6Mw1mKB8TgDGhI3rYxcEK709KMjQxHM2Lf2gqx8s=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120509065722.0a70aef0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 10:00:00 -0700
To: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt> (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC
In-Reply-To: <F7C15739-CBD0-41AF-9FEB-6000971D8A79@checkpoint.com>
References: <20120507215610.10679.15815.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FAA140B.4010703@gmail.com> <006FEB08D9C6444AB014105C9AEB133F017A7C056C4B@il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com> <4FAA1A6A.5070500@gmail.com> <6585DDB2-11FB-4B49-B63E-4F75D540E920@checkpoint.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120509013727.0a999478@resistor.net> <F7C15739-CBD0-41AF-9FEB-6000971D8A79@checkpoint.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 17:12:02 -0000

Hi Yoav,
At 03:37 09-05-2012, Yoav Nir wrote:
>loads of fun without the "People" path). IANAL but this does sound like libel.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg01967.html

>More recently, but not related to IPR issues, during the last IETF 
>quite a few of our prominent members were calling for sanctions 
>(removal of posting privileges) after some of the IETF.Fact.Check posts.

Some identifiers are well-known in some communities.  There is a 
zero-based risk to identify such identifiers.  People tend to go 
after low-hanging fruits.  Why would the "prominent members" be any different?

Regards,
-sm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email