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