Re: Last Call: IP Mobility Support to Proposed Standard

[Charlie Perkins <[e-mail]>]

> This missive covers some of the process issues for
> 
> >  1. IP Mobility Support
> > 	<draft-ietf-mobileip-protocol-15.txt>
> 
> As some of you folks may know, I was a long-time, indeed founding,
> member of the Mobile-IP WG.  When little progress was made in 2 years,
> and the WG Editor was unable to continue, 2 groups of folks "vied" to
> take over the editorship -- namely Tony Li versus Charlie Perkins and
> the "gang of three".  However, the WG rejected both choices.

I was there from almost the very beginning.  Numerous protocol
specifications were offered, and consensus was not forming.
It was a frustrating process for many of us.  I reject completely
the notion that "little progress was made in 2 years".  We
explored numerous design alternatives, and implemented several of
them.  It was (and is!) a new technology.  Lots of people had
ideas.  The end result is pretty darned good, I think.

The "gang of three" was Dave Johnson, Andrew Myles, and myself.
I'm delighted to have been associated with them.  Bill's implication
of some sort of abuse of process is wholly incorrect and uncalled
for -- and, again, far from constructive.

I don't know what Bill means about being a founding member.
I think the founding members were Steve Deering, Dan Duchamp,
John Ioannides, and Chip Maguire.  I can't exactly remember
when Bill started coming, but a lot of work had been done
by then.  I don't think Bill started coming until after
Greg Minshall had already become working-group co-chair
with Steve Deering.

> There were many helpful members in the WG.  But a few members, principly
> the "gang of three", plagued the list with a barrage of continual
> complaints.  Most particularly, they complained that I refused to
> incorporate changes that were patented, or in one case removed a feature
> that had already been included when it was revealed to be patented.

The three of us were actively implementing various versions
of the protocol (including route optimization).  JI and Fumio
Teraoka were among the few other people involved with the IETF
who I know of that were implenting any mobile-IP stuff.  It's
natural that implementors are going to have a lot to say.  Plus,
we felt (and I still feel) that route optimization is very, very
important in many respects for the eventual success of the
mobile-IP protocol.

> The intellectual property contributors were dishonest, and failed to
> disclose the proprietary nature of their contributions in writing or
> until directly questioned about patent issues.  These persons were
> Charlie Perkins and Amir Herzberg, both of IBM.

This is way, way wrong.  I volunteered the information under no pressure
except my personal belief that it was important to be considered
by the working group.  Steve Deering will back me up on this.

As far as Amir, I believe that he also volunteered the information.
I can't remember whether I advised him to, or whether he did it
on his own.

Besides being wrong, your statement is insulting, not constructive,
and has been refuted multiple times in the past.

> As I have detailed in the technical comments, none of the intellectual
> property claimed is essential to the operation of the protocol.

I think the intellectual property issues should properly be
discussed in the mobile-IP working group, not the IETF mailing
list.  No two people seem to agree, and I personally disagree
with the evaluation in the mobile-IP draft specfication.

> However, the "gang of three" lead a private jihad, appealed to
> authority, and the Area Director replaced one Chair (that had supported
> me) with Tony Li, and the Editorship with Charlie Perkins.  This was done
> without public WG consent or consultation.

This version of the story is completely at odds with
reality as I understand.   I'm not sure that the details
matter, but to try to counteract the disinformation, here goes:

1) Dave Johnson, Andrew Myles, and I did emphatically NOT
   appeal to authority.  I personally _was_ asked to give
   my opinion about Bill's effectiveness as an editor.  By
   that time I don't think Andrew was an active participant.
   I'm having a hard time picuring Dave Johnson as a cabalist :-).
   (actually, I appreciate the laugh, Bill.  It helps me get
    through this task you have set before me).

2) The Area Director has always found excellent candidates to
   serve as Working Group co-chairs, even though they often
   disagree with me.  Sheesh.  As far as I know, Bill's
   continued participation in the working group has had NOT
   EVEN ONE SCINTILLA of importance in the choice of working
   group chair.  I strongly suspect that each working group
   chair was only selected after the previous volunteer had
   to leave for whatever reason.

3) Bill, you are welcome to gauge for yourself consensus
   for present and past working group chairs' actions in the
   Mobile-IP Working Group.  I predict it will not substantiate
   your preposterous claim.

> The next draft from Charlie Perkins removed all credit and
> acknowlegement for myself, and for other major contributors.

This, again, is way wrong.  In particular, I did NOT remove credit
and acknowledgment for Bill's contribution.  I will be delighted
to amend the acknowledgements to include anyone left out.

> He also immediately inserted the challenged intellectual property "for
> discussion purposes", over the public objections of more than one WG
> member.  It remains today.

What I have done, in every draft, reflects the direction
of the working group as documented in the minutes, and as
approved by the working group chair.  In fact, because of
the history of the working group, I had to be extra careful
not to step on any toes.  I think the product speaks for
itself, and for the fantastic efforts contributed by many,
many people.

> Use of the "co-located care-of address" reflects IBM bias.

Nonsense.  I've always been in favor of actual, real, $5.95
foreign agents as ubiquitous as light bulbs.  Anyone who
wants to verify my preference should read the Route Optimization
draft(s).

> The use of "nonces" reflects IBM bias.

Nonsense.  It reflects hours and hours and hours of discussion
with lots of people.  It's a cool technology.

> The "envelope method" of authentication reflects IBM bias.

This is complete nonsense.  What are you thinking about?
Is there something here I can respond to?  Right now,
I can't figure out what you might be talking about.

> The use of ARP reflects IBM bias.

This is misleading.  If anything, I have been a constant
proponent of "physical home networks" -- i.e., networks
that actually exist and yet allow computers to move away
from them to "foreign networks".  A major proponent of only
virtual home networks was Yakov Rekhter, formerly of
IBM.  So no matter what way it went, it would by your
estimation reflect IBM bias.

> The "R" bit was insisted upon by Tony Li for particular Cisco
> applications, and would be unnecessary if the "co-located" feature were
> not present.

Since I've never championed the "R" bit, I can't really defend
it.  However, I can at least say that the technical discussion
did occur properly according to due process, and the working
group came to a consensus.

> CONCLUSION:
> 
> This document is inappropriate to advance to Proposed Standard, as it
> violates many features of our inherent review process.

My conclusion is that your conclusion is complete nonsense.

> I claim principle responsibility for the majority of text that is still
> in this draft, the organization of the draft, and for the overall design
> of the registration exchanges and packet formats.

You'd be hard pressed to find much similarity by now.
Your claim of overall design for the registration
messages is wrong too.

> I claim that the Acknowlegements section should at least be amended to
> reflect the actual authorship of the protocol, and the contributors
> should be mentioned in greater detail.  From draft -06:

  [text deleted]

I'll bring up your objections with the Working Group, which
is where you should have brought them up.

> I ask the IESG to investigate the rumor that IBM is offering "bonuses"
> beyond the base salary of IBM "researchers" (read "meeting goers") to
> have IBM's name on RFCs, and an additional bonus for including IBM
> intellectual property.

Here's that offensive and unconstructive paragraph again.
Here's my answer again...

This is not constructive.  It's untrue, insulting, and causes
me to wonder how far I should go to refute the damaging implications.
I've decided not to go very far at all, but I specifically
emphasize:

1) IBM has never paid me a dime to have IBM's name on any RFCs or
   drafts (or any conference publications, etc.)

   Bill could have found this out by asking me, instead of making
   preposterous innuendos on this mailing list.

2) It's too bad, but perhaps quite illuminating, that Bill chooses
   to make the untrue identification in his mind between IBM
   researchers and "meeting goers".  I'm proud to be associated
   with a research organization that has made so many fundamental
   contributions over the years as IBM Research has.  I'm also
   happy to be involved with various aspects of the IETF, since
   that organization has made so many valuable contributions.

   I don't see the place for Bill's unconstructive comment.

   I also question the blanket condemnation of meeting goers.
   I, personally, plan to go to several meetings in Los Angeles,
   and try to cooperate with people to get the best possible
   protocols moved through the process.

   If Bill is trying to make some sort of accusation that IBM
   Researchers aren't implementors, then that implication is just
   plain wrong.  Besides that, the world has space for academicians.
   Why the disrespectful tone?

3) IBM most emphatically does NOT have a policy by which IBM
   employees are paid bonuses to include intellectual property
   into Internet Drafts or other IETF documents.

> [e-mail]
>     Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
> [e-mail]
>     Key fingerprint =  2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3  59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

Charles Perkins