Re: How IETF treats contributors

Vernon Schryver <> Tue, 31 August 2004 14:46 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22782; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:46:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C29wR-00053c-FY; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:49:00 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C29pc-0004v4-RX; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:41:56 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C29oz-0004lT-SP for; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:41:18 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22439 for <>; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:41:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C29qy-0004vy-9h for; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:43:21 -0400
Received: (from vjs@localhost) by (8.13.1/8.13.1) id i7VEeiPX083988 for env-from <vjs>; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:40:44 -0600 (MDT)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:40:44 -0600
From: Vernon Schryver <>
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002
Subject: Re: How IETF treats contributors
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64

> From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" 

> I'd like to expand on what Dean said: "Credit and attribution is about
> intellectual honesty [ and _courtesy_ ] not about copyright law".

Ok, but in the case at hand, 

  - 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.

  - 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.

  - Mr. Vixie's proposal is a lot closer to what I understand of the
     current MARID mechanisms than Mr. Danish's proposal.

  - 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.

  - As far as solving the spam problem is concerned, RMX, SPF, the
     commercial proposals, the MARID proposals, and all other sender
     authentication mechanisms are more like IPv8 than IPv6.  Squashing
     the current modes of spam forgery will have just as much effect
     as the squashing years ago of the forgery of 8-digit user names  The new anti-forgery mechanisms are more general than
     the old regular expressions, but sender forgery is not a required
     aspect of spam.  Some large spammers have long been using domain
     names that they register, use for literally a few days, and
     discard.  For example, some time ago I grew bored with accumulating
     the domain names of one such operation in
     Some of the domain names of smaller (in counts of names) operations
     are in and
     Spammers can deploy sender authentication mechanisms far faster
     than their victims.

  - This thread has the wrong subject.  It should be more like
    "How some would-be contributors treat the IETF."

Vernon Schryver

Ietf mailing list