Re: Ah, I see the cause of the situation now... (tls-authz situation)

Alex Loret de Mola <edgarverona@gmail.com> Tue, 10 February 2009 21:12 UTC

Return-Path: <edgarverona@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF0573A68DB for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:12:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.639
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.639 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jjS2N6BPQIYN for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:12:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from el-out-1112.google.com (el-out-1112.google.com [209.85.162.180]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79D73A6A72 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:12:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by el-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id r27so45999ele.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:12:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=KJ90xX+ksaNPE0KEAV412yaxGtr88tqw3BRD+MViRco=; b=BKyx/Ot26uIa2CdPdEVFdUTGA9uIq6UaRzjOzXrcT1iK2CSrpMEyWmZgIGAXFLu1FE /6RITlFC81HXoDIZ4Cj+LO7q//QUUfBHPvIF9dsVojcAoTwVlfI3o66WsM7EpIzRVfV1 nMNEssuJCWGc1TOr+8Ri9ujCyeotgupnLFBh0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=x/cmbC2BUUVemwhNBY+xZ4Svkypgt1VUCi6s6iEGz+tf2jxHpAsIvMd/ctfTwMeM8Z YhDlsBmGqF2m1hcLWB6d0gxlDvT+z9aqo+oNHFCATUPG2BgOwhYIDz/A6x23Fd5MPmHZ 7jNqXoJq+duRGnnfofVt+r3QXsXZ6Th8jW/ho=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.90.53.5 with SMTP id b5mr2785686aga.74.1234300365957; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:12:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0902101254500.19355@pita.cisco.com>
References: <789dbae90902101252p5d589ec4y97d5d3b88b077094@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0902101254500.19355@pita.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:12:45 -0500
Message-ID: <789dbae90902101312r39cc798fge9e74c14d0b011df@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ah, I see the cause of the situation now... (tls-authz situation)
From: Alex Loret de Mola <edgarverona@gmail.com>
To: Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:12:44 -0000

Dear Ole:

Your paraphrasing assumes many stances that I neither have taken nor
believe, and I'm not certain why my attempts to discern the nature of
how this situation came about is met so frequently with rude
responses.  I think, judging by the harsh tone of your response, that
you may have mistaken the intent of the dialog I've been attempting to
open up.

It assumes that I feel that the individuals posting here were
clueless.  While some likely were, there were also many people who
came here with rational concerns.

It also assumes that I consider this whole situation to be the "fault"
of the IETF because of something tantamount to a linguistic loophole.
First, I am not assessing blame on the IETF: blame implies that some
wrong happened, and even in the most accusatory stances no one could
say that the IETF has done wrong by anyone. I'm merely trying to
determine what brought the situation about in the first place so that
it can be resolved.  Second, the language seems clear enough to me
that the intent of the last call was to receive public comment.  I
don't think that language was an accident: however, I think that if
requesting for public comment is no longer the intent of a last call,
then the language should be changed appropriately.  If either of these
parts were unclear, then I apologize for not having made my response
clear enough.

Like I said before, I'm trying to figure out the cause of the
conflict, and how it can be suitably resolved for the benefit of all
interested parties.

Sincerely,

Alex Loret de Mola



On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> To paraphrase you:
>
> "Because these people are clueless and have no idea how the IETF
> works, it is perfectly proper to mislead them with an announcement
> with a call-to-action that basically amounts to spam. When they
> take such action it's obviously because the IETF doesn't use the
> right language."
>
> Give me a break.
>
> Ole
>
>
> Ole J. Jacobsen
> Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
> Cisco Systems
> Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
> E-mail: ole@cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
>
>
>
>