IETF Logo Mail Archive

On anonymity.... (was: Sergeant at arms: please deal with mars.techno.cat@gmail.com)

Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl> Mon, 28 October 2013 07:43 UTC

Return-Path: <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl>
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 425C511E821E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 00:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 N+d83MEPA98b for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 00:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from open.nlnetlabs.nl (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F8EA21F9477 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 00:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-64.nlnetlabs.nl (dhcp-64.nlnetlabs.nl [213.154.224.64]) (authenticated bits=0) by open.nlnetlabs.nl (8.14.7/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9S7gNRa033637 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 08:42:25 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from olaf@NLnetLabs.nl)
Authentication-Results: open.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=none header.from=NLnetLabs.nl
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.3 open.nlnetlabs.nl r9S7gNRa033637
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=default; t=1382946182; bh=WPepOM/IDW5ilK1P+YDNplAY4bVPDhdswfog4IjrNtA=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=iSEJfE5ge0YY3pOKB24BwsrGn3UmwrGEgNvBKZ7EhLfGYZVzKcUutA7zJpDV4xW51 dOiWTTrF+4Ui9Ou8WMsK/57Z5lKvOxiHFb/2cOGwssFcfkV9ufmC9RxQFfdBPTTNDe MOinJuw9q6hYZ7M1g3T0VCFBoJMyNnzedk1SyrdA=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_13D904EF-B63E-41A2-BFE2-F9F263166485"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
Subject: On anonymity.... (was: Sergeant at arms: please deal with mars.techno.cat@gmail.com)
From: Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <5266CE7C.2020503@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 08:42:22 +0100
Message-Id: <636654F2-248D-4CEF-A4A9-24F4BAB79993@NLnetLabs.nl>
References: <5262FB95.8080500@gmail.com> <CAK41CSRKhD9W5WWm3xBJeb4U8Q6TbfG1EHnY_0BN7fC1QvO=iA@mail.gmail.com> <52657B0B.3080701@gmail.com> <m21u3d5zvo.wl%randy@psg.com> <5266B4A4.9020301@dcrocker.net> <5266C6CA.30900@gmail.com> <0B5A250AE70FD6B21DD3CF4C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <5266CE7C.2020503@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (open.nlnetlabs.nl [213.154.224.1]); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 08:42:26 +0100 (CET)
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, "ietf@ietf.org list" <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: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 07:43:11 -0000

On 22 okt. 2013, at 21:14, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> If you look at my original complaint to Jordi, anonymity was not mentioned.
> I only raised it when asked  why I requested action. And I agree: anonymity
> in itself is not a problem.
> 
> Anonymity + irrelevance is a problem, in my opinion.


I’ve raised this before, but Brian’s mail triggered me to bring it up again:

IMHO, anonymity and technical contributions in the IETF are a problem too. The IETF policy on IPR breaks down if you do not know who to go after if contributions made by anonymous persons turn out to be tainted after standardization.  

Anonymity in a debate that doesn’t lead or influences a standard action is not a problem (the merit of the argument counts).


—Olaf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email