Re: [perpass] Howdy!

[Dean Willis <[e-mail]>]

Pardon the delay. Things got busy.

I intended no attack; I mean that since we (participants in the IETF and
other standards bodies) are now "suspects" in the debasing of standards,
that we need to be fully prepared to answer these sorts of questions.
Remember that when suspicion reigns, it's not the questions (or answers)
that get you. It's the mere fact of having been questioned that drags you
down.

We cannot afford even the least suspicion of having been co-opted by a
nation-state or comparable security apparat.

But it's not feasible for all of us to have perfect alibis, and potential
motives abound.

Better yet, if we have mechanisms in place that are obviously resistant to
such manipulations. Then we have no reason to fear the Inquisition. Or to
fear that they may be among us.

--
Dean
 On Oct 8, 2013 4:05 PM, "Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 09/13/2013 06:12 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
> > Yeah, that's an ad hominem attack .
>
> Oops. Sorry Steve, my fault for not noticing that in Dean's
> mail from a few weeks ago. Dean, please desist from ad-hominen
> attacks.
>
> And I figure this particular thread has run its course in
> terms of being productive. (A new thread on the issue of
> MTI vs mandatory-to-use-or-similar would be interesting
> though.)
>
> Thanks,
> S.
>
>
>
>
>