Re: SIP now IPv6

[Hans-Werner Braun <[e-mail]>]

>Hans-Werner, when you issued your heated message to the IAB, yesterday,
>that was bad enough.  You now are including a wider audience.  This

I sent a private message to a small group of people I know well. I did
not forward it publicly, someone else did. That was very inappropriate
and violated trust. I would have generally no problems with all IAB messages
to be public, if there were such an agreement. Lacking same, I assume that
IAB (and IESG) email exchanges are private, and authors should be asked
before forwarding.

>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 irritating,
not addressing my concerns (which I believe are still accurate), accusing me
of things, not telling the truth at times and contradicting yourself that I
finally gave up and just said "good luck." There was no point in continuing
the discussion then, as you were not even *listening* to my concerns.

>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 messages
sent to me on public mailing lists. A few months ago my arguments with you
also just included the IAB and the IESG, which I consider offline and between
friends (may be it is beyond you, but friends can have heated arguments).

>I don't know why you feel inclined toward such attacks and don't know why
>you feel inclined towards interpreting events with such distortion.  Last

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.

>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
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
*before* I started the discussion with you last time, but not even our email
"discussion" then (just like the IPAE document) was addressing quite specific
questions of non-integratability. Neither has the followup document that was
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
with you anyway, as you don't seem to be listening. However, if you accuse
me personally in public, I guess you ask for a response (though I don't
intend to continue responding, as it generally seems worthless).

>turning a simple administrative event into something evil.

Yeah, right. What planet do you say you live on?

Hans-Werner