Re: How IETF treats contributors

[ Sorry, but I couldn't resists to give a nasty side comment:
  Vernon Shryver was one of the persons who most unobjectively and 
  maliciously attacked RMX and any other proposal against Spam. 
  He was displeased because his own invention has major flaws, 
  and that I showed in the RMX draft that his proposal can and 
  is abused for censoring e-mail traffic. His posting appears
  to me as if he took the opportunity for revenge. I'll 
  nevertheless reply to correct some of his misleading and wrong
  statements. ]

First, my name is Danisch, not Danish. 

On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 08:40:44AM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
>
>   - None of the versions of Mr. Danish's proposal that I've seen
>      credited Mr. Vixie's document or some others than preceded Mr.
>      Danish's work.  I think that was due to ignornance and disinterest
>      instead of malice, but it does reduce Mr. Danish's standing to 
>      more credit than he already receives.

This is pure nonsense. The same kind of defamation he already used 
on the early asrg mailing list.

I did not cite or credit anyone else because at the time I wrote RMX
I did not know of anyone else's work in this field. RMX is in no way 
derived from or based on anyone else's work. If anyone has any doubt 
about this, I can show that I was working on organizational security, 
especially in context of e-mail, that RMX is just the logical 
continuation of my former work and that I had very good reasons to 
design RMX the way it is. 

How should I have cited or credited someone else's work without
knowing it? And why?

In contrast, SPF and CallerID were provably based on RMX, the authors
were familiar with RMX, and the first version of SPF was explicetely
announced to cover RMX. 

>   - Mr. Danish's proposal was always an obvious non-starter for various
>      reasons, including the requirement for defining new DNS RR types
>      before it could be deployed or even tested.

RMX is not the requirement for defining the new DNS RR type. This was
just the proposal how to implement it. 

That's the illogical point of the story: SPF was derived from RMX by 
simply omitting the invention of a new DNS RR type. This didn't change
the idea of RMX, just changed the way to implement it a little
bit. And the same time certain people claimed that SPF is 'new' and
that RMX is wrong because it required a new DNS RR type. 

Typical way of intentional misinformation.

>   - It is ironic or something that few people who are openly concerned
>      about credit for their work have enviable reputations.  They tend
>      to be inventors of such as IPv8.

???

Does anyone have a clue what this is about?

Hadmut Danisch

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf