This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dean Anderson
dean at av8.com
Thu May 31 02:09:59 CEST 2007
On Wed, 30 May 2007 michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > That's broken. As it has been stated in previous messages > > some days ago, RIR communities can do whatever they want, > > especially if IETF fails. > > That may be true but since the IETF is not failing, there is no reason > for the RIRs to take over any IETF functions. I think there is evidence that the IETF is failing. Rather than a complete list of every failure, I'll just point out that the IETF (that is, the IESG and IAB), have a number of now well documented problems with: corruption conflicts of interest bad faith false statements silencing critics various kinds of deception Millions of dollars are involved in these deceptions. A recent egregious example of corruption, that is, officials profiting from deception, is the Housley authz-extns scandal. Russ Housley and Mark Brown submitted a draft to the IETF standardizing a patented TLS authorization protocol in February 2006. The patent was submitted in January 2005. The problem: They didn't tell the IETF about the patent, in violation of the IETF Policy. Their draft (seven revisions), stated that By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. What is even more egregious about this is that Housley was an IESG member during this time, and knew the policy of the IETF on patent disclosure. The draft was approved by the IESG as a standard in June 2006. Housley still kept mum on the patent. Brown (the other author) finally made a disclosure on November 26, 2006 (right over Thanksgiving). A good eye by Sam Hartman caught the emailed disclosure notice, and thereby discovered the deception. It was discussed by the IESG on the next telechat on 11/30/2006. The IESG announced withdrawal of the approval in February, 2007. It turns out the Housley was paid to write and promote the draft. Housley knew the IETF policy, and didn't disclose the patent, and repeatedly made material false statements. The IETF/ISOC membership and the public lost a legal right by unknowingly using the patented standards. Software patents are usually worth millions of dollars, and patented standards are many time more valuable. I refer one to the definition of "Actionable Fraud". [I used Black's Law Dictionary.] In spite of this, the IESG still (and subsequently!) made Housley Chairman of the IETF and IESG. It is an understatement to say that this is very bad judgment. And after the full extent of the scandal is known, Housley has not even been made to resign. So, I think it is becoming clear that the IETF is an organization that is failing: There is not a majority of honest people on its managing boards to avoid involving the IETF in serious scandal, nor even enough to object to promoting people known to be involved in serious scandal, nor even enough to force a scandalized Chairman to resign after the seriousness of the scandal is known. I think that's pretty bad, and it will only get worse. [Enron and Worldcom come to mind] --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]