Re: SIP now IPv6

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

Hans-Werner,

Sorry to see you were unable to take my suggestion about the holiday 
spirit to heart.  But please understand that I shall be responding to
each of your distortions of fact or intent.  You began by claiming
I was admiting to political trickery.  Anytime you'd care to re-think
that claim, feel free.
    
    I sent a private message to a small group of people I know well. I did

You, a member of the IAB, sent a very forceful assertion of foul play to
the IAB.  This is not merely a minor note to a few friends.

    not forward it publicly, someone else did. That was very inappropriate

I don't recall seeing your note in public until you forwarded it.  I _did_
see a copy sent to 2 of us, as a background for pursuing the matter you
raised.  So, it suggests that at least one other IAB member also
viewed your note as having formal import.

    >is the second major effort on your part to attack our effort, of which
    >I am aware.  It is based on silly and inapprpriate misinterpretation.
    
    Dave, we had an argument some months ago, during which you were so irritati
		  ng,

Irritating?  Moi?  I thought the irritation factor was simply a response 
to your own.  (And now we start discussing whose mother wears combat boots.)

    not addressing my concerns (which I believe are still accurate), accusing m

Au contraire, mon ami.  Your concerns were addressed in detail.  Care
to review the transcript?

As to claims of my accusing you of things, what _are_ your talking about?

    of things, not telling the truth at times and contradicting yourself that I

Well, now we get into a realm that lawyers like to play.  Hans-Werner, I take 
it personally when someone claims I'm not telling the truth, particularly
when that assertion is made publicly by a person holding public
office.  Hence, Hans-Werner, consider this a formal request that you 
document such claims.  I'll be glad to foward that request to the ISOC
if you misunderstand what I mean by "formal".  In other words, I don't
much like being called a liar.

    >Please stop or at least take it off-line.
    
    Dave, you are really way out of bounds here. I had made comments to the IAB
		  ,
    nobody else. Others dragged them out, and I am only reacting to their messa
		  ges
    sent to me on public mailing lists. A few months ago my arguments with you

Exactly.  The note you sent, to a public list and to which I was objecting,
engaged in facile distortion of my own comments, indicating that I was
agreeing that I/we were playing some sort of political game.  It was
not designed to develop the matter constructively, instead it was
designed to keep the discussion in a strictly political tone.  Since your
note was in response to a utterly straightforward note from Vint, I don't
see how you can attribute the outrageous tone to anyone but yourself.

    also just included the IAB and the IESG, which I consider offline and betwe
		  en
    friends (may be it is beyond you, but friends can have heated arguments).

Hans-Werner, given events of the last 6 months, it is astonishing to me that
you would consider communciations among the IESG & IAB to be offline and
private.  They aren't.  The topic at hand is of major import.  The outcome
will affect the Internet and many millions of people.  It ain't "offline".

And lobbying for or against a point of view or a technical approach, when
that lobbying is conducted among the IAB or IESG, is in no way a simple
or minor matter.  I am constantly hearing of concerns about my own
affiliation with IPAE, given my participation on the IESG.  Hence,
my commentary to the steering group is kept very highly constrained.  Hence,
your own lack of restraint, moving from unenlightened criticism into outright
distorting attack, is quite troublesome.  Were you merely another member of
the IETF community, this would not be a big deal.  But you aren't, so it
is a very big deal.
    
    I can assure you I am not the only one. I would not even have noticed the
    announcement probably for a long time to come, if not other*s* would have
    contacted me about it with quite some irritation.

Oh, so your involvement isn't merely a minor matter "among friends"?  It
suggests that you feel there is the basis for formal pursuit of the 
matter.  Then please handle it accordingly.  
    
    >time, your attack was based on your failure even to read summaries of
    >our work, much less review of the specification.  This time, you are
    
    That is just a lie, Dave, and not the first time. You have accused me

Again, Hans-Werner, you really should be more careful about throwing
around such assertions.  Someone might start thinking that you are
being careless.  Worse, they might think that you're not.  

Hence, a small snippet from our August exchange.  The rest is available 
for detailed perusal, if you wish to continue to make rash assertions
about my honesty:

---- 1 ---
(This is from the middle of a lengthy exchange and is highly edited. --dhc)

From: Hans-Werner Braun <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] (Dave Crocker)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 17:17:51 PDT
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]

>I would appreciate your citing when and where that blanket assertion
>was made, since I believe that the following are more in line with

Just found this little jewel (publicly FTPable from gated.cornell.edu):

To: [e-mail]
Subject: New Routing and Addressing Scheme
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 92 16:03:47 -0500
From: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>

Attached is another approach.

(The remainder of the message scoped out Bob's IP-over-IP scheme. --dhc)

---- 2 ----
To: Hans-Werner Braun <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 17:35:56 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>

Hans-Werner,

Surely you jest?

    Subject: New Routing and Addressing Scheme
    Date: Fri, 24 Jan 92 16:03:47 -0500
    From: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>

Perhaps you missed the date?  

The message you cite was Bob's original idea.  It didn't pay out,
in its original form.  It was classic, pure header encapsulation.
The new proposal is highly modified from that.

---- 3 ----
From: Hans-Werner Braun <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] (Dave Crocker)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 18:36:06 PDT
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]

You asked for a reference. I think this one was consistent with the slides
presented about the address encapsulation at the San Diego IETF meeting in
March.

Ok, lets agree on that things have changed, and that the original ideas did

-------

So, you cite Bob's original note proposing IP-over-IP and then cite the
a San Diego presentation, neither of which pertain to IPAE, which was
an entirely new specification.  At then end of this lengthly exchange,
you acknowledge that things are different than you were claiming at
the beginning.

Pardon me for taking that sequence as indicating that you had just finished
conducted a forceful attack on IPAE without have done due diligence in
attempting to understanding it.  But calling me a liar seems a tad 
inappropriate, Hans-Werner.

As I say, if you'd care to review the details of the technical inaccuracies
in your assertions, in an attempt to determine where I was doing my
lying, I'll be glad to.  As I recall, the gist of the points you raised
were that IPAE didn't have globally unique addresses (which it did) and
that two sites could misconfigure a back-door router to connect them
without a common carrier and thereby mess up routing (and they mostly 
certainly can do that, just as they can today.)

    of that before and I did not even find such lies worth responding to,
    last time. Now that you drag it out publicly I feel that I have to let
    you know that you were lieing both times. I had read the IPAE document

Document it, Hans-Werner.  Stop blustering and start documenting.

    issued prior to the last IETF meeting. I was really not intending to get
    involved at all into this argument. It seems worthless discussing things

You mean you thought you could conduct a private, backdoor campaign, 
claiming political misbehavior without anyone taking exception?

    >turning a simple administrative event into something evil.
    
    Yeah, right. What planet do you say you live on?

Clearly not yours.

Dave