Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-03

"Murphy, Sandra" <Sandra.Murphy@cobham.com> Tue, 15 November 2011 02:56 UTC

Return-Path: <Sandra.Murphy@cobham.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 051631F0D61 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:56:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zRaDLE36+kc1 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:56:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from M4.sparta.com (M4.sparta.com [157.185.61.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B271F0D53 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:56:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Beta5.sparta.com (beta5.sparta.com [157.185.63.21]) by M4.sparta.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id pAF2uO0M024864 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:56:29 -0600
Received: from Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com ([157.185.80.107]) by Beta5.sparta.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAF2uNBK016809 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:56:24 -0600
Received: from HERMES.columbia.ads.sparta.com ([2002:9db9:506b::9db9:506b]) by Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 21:56:23 -0500
From: "Murphy, Sandra" <Sandra.Murphy@cobham.com>
To: "sidr@ietf.org" <sidr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-03
Thread-Index: AQHMnxsyCx2p0PZ7Tu6Ty5HU0UcysZWnVAyUgAXuq28=
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:56:22 +0000
Message-ID: <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F603227E@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com>
References: <Pine.WNT.4.64.1110201037470.4820@SMURPHY-LT.columbia.ads.sparta.com> <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F6025FEE@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com> <CAH1iCipuaB=niUZY2WQdMX8REDVTWGjhosxTyq1AekkUiLZ=FQ@mail.gmail.com> <p06240805cae063a02041@128.89.89.6>, <CAH1iCipm-DGtwuYm0471J2890zAng0CH-sj1dnuq1wi2QEvsFQ@mail.gmail.com>, <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F6028DB8@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com>
In-Reply-To: <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F6028DB8@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.185.61.24]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-03
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:56:51 -0000

One clarification.  I included Eric below as he was one of those who took offense at the conclusion Steve drew from Brian's remark about colleagues.  Unfortunately, "you" is both singular and plural, so the text as written implies that Eric colluded in the remark about "colleagues".  I should definitely have said "If Brian meant".

--Sandy, to clarify my previous speaking as wg chair

________________________________________
From: Murphy, Sandra
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 3:47 PM
To: Brian Dickson; Stephen Kent
Cc: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-03

Guys, guys, guys.

Steve: making reference to a person's company concentrates too much on the personal.  Please be more careful.

Brian, Eric:   If you meant "some individual contributors who I happen to know and discuss this with", saying "my colleagues" was subject to misinterpretation, especially in light of this recent energetic exchange.

--Sandy, speaking out for civility as wg chair


________________________________________
From: sidr-bounces@ietf.org [sidr-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Eric Osterweil [eosterweil@verisign.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 11:17 AM
To: Stephen Kent
Cc: sidr@ietf.org list
Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-03

On Nov 9, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Stephen Kent wrote:

> At 1:27 AM -0500 11/8/11, Brian Dickson wrote:
>> ...
>
>> I do not support adoption of this document in its current form.
>>
>> The main reasons have to do with fundamental aspects which at a high
>> level have been addressed by my colleagues,
>
> so, this is a Verisign critique, provided by you, Eric, and Danny?

Steve,

This is a ridiculous question, and the implication is a completely false characterization of my involvement.  For the record: I am participating as an individual only.

Eric
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

________________________________________
From: sidr-bounces@ietf.org [sidr-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Brian Dickson [brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 3:07 PM
To: Stephen Kent
Cc: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-03

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> wrote:
> At 1:27 AM -0500 11/8/11, Brian Dickson wrote:
>
> ...
>
> I do not support adoption of this document in its current form.
>
> The main reasons have to do with fundamental aspects which at a high
>
> level have been addressed by my colleagues,
>
> so, this is a Verisign critique, provided by you, Eric, and Danny?

Respectfully, Stephen, I would ask that you not infer anything along
these lines.
The IETF is very clear on participation being an individual activity,
regardless of
$day_job.

In addition to this _not_ being the case, I _personally_ consider this both
highly inappropriate at a professional level, and bordering on _ad_hominem_,
something that really has no place in WG mailing-list discussions.

I would ask that you seriously consider whether an apology for your comment
is appropriate.

As for "colleague", I meant within the WG, as in "collegial". If I had meant to
say "co-worker", I would have said "co-worker".

Any similarity between our concerns is entirely due to similarity in operational
experiences in a variety of venues, at a variety of $day_jobs.

I'll address the content-oriented portion of your email in a separate message.

Brian
- not using any email-address that would suggest affiliation -
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr