Re: [Model-t] draft-arkko-farrell-arch-model-t-00

[Dominique Lazanski <[e-mail]>]

It is fine. I get it. You value being confrontational over collaborative. You value being insular over working with the wider community. There were three drafts - not 100 - so leaving one out seems ridiculous. I think it would be reasonable to include all three going forward in one draft. Don’t you?

I am not taking my work elsewhere so you won’t be getting rid of me any time soon. I have experience at start ups during the 1990s called Yahoo! and eBay and also about 20 years experience in mobile operator device security including work on IMEI security so if you don’t think that is relevant that is clearly your problem, not mine.

I look forward to working with you and our community in Singapore on this topic.

Dominique


> On 6 Nov 2019, at 18:15, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> On 06/11/2019 18:06, Dominique Lazanski wrote:
>> Hiya,
>> 
>> There is a third draft on this topic which you neglected to include
>> in your presentation from Montreal. 
> 
> Are you complaining that a presentation to introduce a
> discussion did not comprehensively refer to every single
> mention of the topic or something? If so, I guess that
> seems a bit odd to me.
> 
>> That is the draft that I
>> submitted and second version of which will be posted shortly. Please
>> see the attached screenshot of drafts which does not include the one
>> I wrote and the attached email as well as the video from minute 44
>> where I mention my draft and my willingness to collaborate with you.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkoGWtdZZAw&feature=youtu.be&t=2275 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkoGWtdZZAw&feature=youtu.be&t=2275>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkoGWtdZZAw&feature=youtu.be&t=2275 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkoGWtdZZAw&feature=youtu.be&t=2275>>
>> 
>> The logical thing to do would be work together and combine all three
>> - now two - drafts into one with all three of us as authors.
> 
> Perhaps or perhaps not. I think it's entirely valid for
> Jari and I to choose the content of an individual draft
> that we co-authored. If you disagree perhaps that's a
> topic you might be better taking elsewhere, e.g. to
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> perhaps, as I'm sure other authors of
> individual drafts would like to know that such (new to
> me) expectations exist for some people.
> 
> Meanwhile, can you or Bret please clarify how you got to
> "I see content from it has been incorporated" (where "it"
> is your draft I assune).
> 
> What exact content do you mean?
> 
> If we did inadvertently include some text without reference
> I'd be keen to correct that. If we did not (which I think
> is the case) then I'd like that accusation (more the case
> for Bret's mail than yours) cleared up please.
> 
> Thanks,
> S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Thanks, Dominique
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 6 Nov 2019, at 16:33, Stephen Farrell
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 05/11/2019 14:45, Bret Jordan wrote:
>>>> Taking her ideas and words and refactoring them in to a new draft
>>>> is just wrong.
>>> 
>>> I have no idea what you're on about. The draft Jari posted is just
>>> a merge of the separate drafts he and I posted for the DEDR
>>> workshop some months ago.
>>> 
>>> If there is some accusation in your text above, then I think it's
>>> be stylish to retract it and a bit naff to fail to do so.
>>> 
>>> Thanks, S.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>
>> 
>> 
>> 
> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>