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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 07/11/2019 15:20, Bret Jordan wrote:
> Withdrawn.

Thank you. I appreciate that saying that can sometimes
be hard to do.

> I felt when you presented, a lot of the ideas were similar to what
> Dominique had published. 

Yep, there're a lot of similarities. That's likely a
good sign though.

> Then when you did not acknowledge her draft
> even though there were only three drafts published, I felt like you
> were purposefully shunning her. That was the basis of my concern.

That was definitely not our intent.

In fact, I'm not sure if we do want to fully merge all
the various drafts now or even soon - it may be better to
see what emerges from a few different efforts for a while,
and it's not clear to me that all of anyone's text needs
to end up in an RFC - in some sense the ideal outcome
would be a 1-pager that we could offer to IETFers to see
if they'd like that to update BCP72. We might or might
not decide that there's value in publishing the 20-40
page justification/analysis that lead to that 1-pager in
an RFC, but equally, it might be ok to just leave that
hanging about in Internet-drafts. (Not sure TBH, and too
early yet to tell.)

> However, after re-reviewing, I see that you published your document
> first. So I formally apologize for claiming that you incorporated her
> ideas.

Again, thanks.

Cheers,
S.

> 
> 
> Thanks, Bret PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447  F2C0 74F8
> ACAE 7415 0050 "Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however,
> the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."
> 
>> On Nov 6, 2019, at 5:45 PM, Stephen Farrell
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hiya,
>> 
>> On 06/11/2019 23:39, Martin Thomson wrote:
>>> misunderstanding.
>> 
>> As you know, for an academic, allegations of plagiarism are not
>> something to treat as just a possible misunderstanding.
>> 
>> I've had a couple of students over the last 15+ years who failed
>> their courses solely because I or a colleague spotted exactly that
>> kind of mis-behaviour - it wouldn't be credible for me to check for
>> that if I didn't react to similar accusations against me as being
>> serious.
>> 
>> In this case, Jari and I have been accused of plagiarism: "I see
>> content from it has been incorporated" is a quote from [1],
>> referring to a -00 draft published by the author of [1] on July 8th
>> 2019. [2]
>> 
>> Our recent draft [3] is substantially the merge of drafts first
>> pubslished in April 2019 [4,5], the latest versions of which
>> (pre-merge) were dated July 6th 2019 and July 9th 2019.
>> 
>> I have requested three times that that accusation be withdrawn or
>> justified. That request has not been acknowledged nor answered, but
>> was met by additional irrelevant and incorrect pejoratives.
>> 
>> No text has been quoted to demonstrate any issue, never mind such a
>> serious issue as plagiarism.
>> 
>> I hope it is clear that this accusation is both serious and
>> unfounded and therefore needs to be withdrawn.
>> 
>> It may be the case that the someone didn't understand that they
>> made a serious accusation. If so, I hope this mail should have
>> fully explained that.
>> 
>> S.
>> 
>> [1] 
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/model-t/1oU-aP-aA70j3nl_6aYNssmfjaI
>>
>> 
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lazanski-smart-users-internet/
>> [3]
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arkko-farrell-arch-model-t/ 
>> [4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-etm/ [5]
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arkko-arch-internet-threat-model/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
<0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>--
>> Model-t mailing list [e-mail] 
>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/model-t
> 
> 
>