IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] FW: Thoughts and concerns

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Fri, 29 November 2019 11:16 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 725AF120124 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 03:16:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R6GvnZBOUt3F for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 03:16:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A1E71200B8 for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 03:16:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6AAE49; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 12:16:23 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:date:date:message-id:subject:subject:mime-version:from :from:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :received:received; s=mail; t=1575026181; bh=c36+L1NXFadhXM93F5n MBcUBZRD6BpsKI2fWV1jvRTo=; b=U11/CfckxpSqWG7jN+rPbK+rLeW0d87mLAD WBnCqtXv+6IdVQ2tKyrxbsGXLe8/nj/znXO0stvw7MVXBmPcQZmMP58pBiGJhrAD QtYxtwAqIk+SMRqpgDgLPvzFPgluCpPdkklxDn0+IId+v0L29L2axC4mUNcxMzat E55f69VQ=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id Z80KoGA2xM5C; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 12:16:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:d1f:f68f:54a6:e4d5] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:d1f:f68f:54a6:e4d5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 61FBD3C; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 12:16:19 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-EEE9DB2B-3E1A-43D1-88C1-64E6CF7FF128"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Message-Id: <CC9D1785-E078-4932-A03B-6B5742C229BD@steffann.nl>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 12:16:17 +0100
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
To: "Bertrand Duvivier (bduvivie)" <bduvivie@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17B111)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/J5a-QAJMgPNB5fXO29q43rcgBFI>
Subject: Re: [spring] FW: Thoughts and concerns
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 11:16:27 -0000


Hi Bertrand,

> If this is not an IETF Business (like suggested by Andrew Alton), I do suggest this irrelevant threat to be abandon/drop from the IETF SPING mailing list.

I disagree that is not IETF business. I think it is very much IETF business when participants in the IETF knowingly misrepresent the IETF.

If that document had been published by an unknowing outsider a friendly email informing them that they got it wrong would be appropriate. But when the same is done by authors of a draft and/or their employer then they knowingly misrepresent the IETF, and that undermines what the IETF does.

Cheers,
Sander

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email