headers
Dean Anderson | 28 Sep 2007 22:36

Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

I cannot post to the IETF list (because of prior misconduct by Housley
and others regarding my previous complaints of failures to file IPR
disclosures on other drafts). I would appreciate it if someone would
repost this to the ietf list.

Following will be my last response to Polk.

Inline:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I think the IETF already sent a very strong signal that it won't
> close its eyes to late disclosures for standards track documents,
> by removing this from the standards track. It seems like double
> jeopardy to use this as an argument against Experimental status
> too - as Tim has said, there's nothing in our rules to block
> publication as Experimental after an IPR disclosure.

"Double jeopardy" is the legal term for twice being at risk for the same
crime.  I suppose it is good to implicitly recognize that something
wrong happened, here.  But the IETF has not explicitly recognized the
gravity of the problem, and therefore has not rehabilitated Housley or
Brown.  Indeed, nothing bad at all seems to have happened to them as a
result of their misconduct; not even an official email censuring their
conduct; no resignation; nothing. (see
http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/People/Housley/index.html). Housley and
Brown very nearly succeeded in circumventing the IETF process by not
properly disclosing the facts according to their obligations and duties.

Their near success and lack of penalty has emboldened Tim Polk to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dean Anderson | 28 Sep 2007 22:39

Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns


I cannot post to the IETF list (because of prior misconduct by Housley
and others regarding my previous complaints of failures to file IPR
disclosures on other drafts). I would appreciate it if someone would
repost this to the ietf list.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:04:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dean Anderson <dean <at> av8.com>
To: Tim Polk <tim.polk <at> nist.gov>
Cc: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf <at> mit.edu>
Subject: Re: future of tls-authz

I have cc'd Sam Hartman on this so that he can comment on the assert by
Tim Polk that Hartman believes the technical content merits publication.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Tim Polk wrote:

> 
> On Sep 20, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Tim Polk wrote:
> >
> >> Dean,
> >>
> >> On Sep 18, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
> >>
> >>> It looks like you already picked a strategy; The datatracker shows
> >>> that last Monday you changed the status to Experimental, Publication
> >>> Requested.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Eric Rescorla | 28 Sep 2007 22:58

Re: Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

At Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:39:05 -0400 (EDT),
Dean Anderson wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Tim Polk wrote:
> > The TLS working group declined to take this work on.  That is
> > different from not supporting publication.
> 
> The above isn't a true statement.  The name of the draft
> "draft-housley-tls-authz-extns" contains the name of the working group,
> a fact that indicates it is a working group document.  After the fraud
> by Housley was discovered, and the approval was removed, the TLS Working
> Group was asked, but no longer supported the protocol because of the
> patent.  See Rescorla's message, quoted above.

Dean,

Your statement above is inaccurate. The -tls- in the document name
does not mean that the document is a WG document. It's quite common
to have draft-<individual>-<wg> documents, which generally indicates
that the named individual believes the document is targets at that
WG. As an example, consider the following documents:

  draft-bryan-p2psip-reload-01.txt
  draft-jennings-p2psip-asp-00.txt
  draft-matthews-p2psip-hip-hop-00.txt

These are all alternative documents targeted at the P2PSIP WG
(there are about 5 more, too) but none have been accepted by the WG.

This document has never been a work item of the TLS WG.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Brian E Carpenter | 28 Sep 2007 23:31
Picon

Re: [TLS] Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

On 2007-09-29 08:58, Eric Rescorla wrote:
...
>> After the fraud
>> by Housley was discovered, 

I don't know who wrote this libel that Eric replied to
(apparently it was someone whose email gets magically deleted
before it reaches me), but I would like to remind people
that the late IPR disclosure in this case had nothing whatever
to do with Russ Housley.

Sorry about the excessive cross-posting, but it does seem necessary
to correct libels. Being falsely accused of fraud seems to be an
occupational hazard for IETF Chairs, but that doesn't mean it
should go unrefuted.

     Brian
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Dean Anderson | 29 Sep 2007 00:21

Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

I cannot post to the IETF list (because of prior misconduct by Housley
and others regarding my previous complaints of failures to file IPR
disclosures on other drafts). I would appreciate it if someone would
repost this to the ietf list.

It was brought to my attention that the document wasn't ever a TLS
working group document. Therefore, my response quoted in below, is
incorrect:

> The name of the draft "draft-housley-tls-authz-extns" contains the
> name of the working group, a fact that indicates it is a working group
> document.

The above is incorrect and I stand corrected.

However, it remains true that:

> After the fraud by Housley was discovered, and the approval was
> removed, the TLS Working Group was asked, but no longer supported the
> protocol because of the patent.  See Rescorla's message, quoted above.

See Sam Hartman's datatracker entry.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-housley-tls-authz-extns/comment/68197/?
[This whole comment is a very good read, and I'm tempted to include more
of it here.]

Polk was arguing that it is somehow in the best interests of the
community, and that the community somehow hasn't expressed non-support
for the publication. Polk's argument is still wrong:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dean Anderson | 29 Sep 2007 04:41

Re: [TLS] Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> On 2007-09-29 08:58, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> ...
> >> After the fraud
> >> by Housley was discovered, 
> 
> I don't know who wrote this libel that Eric replied to
> (apparently it was someone whose email gets magically deleted
> before it reaches me), 

Yet another petty lie.  However truth is an absolute defense to libel.  
Fortunately, the law gives a definition of actionable fraud and that
definition states the necessary elements:  The essential elements are
representation, falsity, scienter, deception, reliance, and injury.  All 
of those elements are present. See
http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/Housley/index.html

> but I would like to remind people that the late IPR disclosure in this
> case had nothing whatever to do with Russ Housley.

A less petty lie, but still not true. Brown has said it was all Brown's
fault. But Brown's claim isn't credible. Housley admits he knew through
all 7 versions that an undisclosed patent existed, and it was Housley
that produced all 7 drafts that contained mis-statements of fact.
Housley wasn't misled by Brown;  Housley and Brown misled the IETF.

> Sorry about the excessive cross-posting, but it does seem necessary
> to correct libels. Being falsely accused of fraud seems to be an
> occupational hazard for IETF Chairs, but that doesn't mean it
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dean Anderson | 29 Sep 2007 05:36

Re: Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns (fwd)

Oops. This got out before it was fully edited.

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> On 2007-09-29 08:58, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> ...
> >> After the fraud
> >> by Housley was discovered, 
> 
> I don't know who wrote this libel that Eric replied to
> (apparently it was someone whose email gets magically deleted
> before it reaches me), 

Yet another petty lie. Carpenter edited my name out of Rescorla's
message.  Carpenter can killfile anyone he wants;  advertising that here
just an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem has 2 elements: personal and
irrelevant. It is irrelevant who is in Carpenter's killfile. By
contrast, complaint of official misconduct is not an ad hominem because
it is relevant to proper official conduct.

However, I haven't libeled anyone: Truth is an absolute defense to
libel.  Fortunately, the law gives a definition of actionable fraud and
that definition states the necessary elements:  The essential elements
are representation, falsity, scienter, deception, reliance, and injury.  
All of those elements are present. See
http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/People/Housley/index.html

> but I would like to remind people that the late IPR disclosure in this
> case had nothing whatever to do with Russ Housley.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Harald Tveit Alvestrand | 29 Sep 2007 21:48
Picon

ADMIN: Suspension of posting privilleges for Dean Anderson

I have noted that a few messages sent by Dean Anderson <dean <at> av8.com> to 
this list were not in a tone expected for conversation on IETF lists.

Dean Anderson is also the subject of an in-power PR-Action:

<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg01967.html>

Under the procedures of RFC 3683, I have suspended his posting privilleges 
to the IPR-WG mailing list.

                  Harald Alvestrand
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tim Polk | 1 Oct 2007 17:25
Favicon

Innocence lost for this newbie AD...


Dean Anderson has posted numerous emails regarding tls-authz to the  
tls and ipr working group
lists recently.  I will not respond to the messages directly - they  
are not worthy of my time.  However,
I thought I owed the wg members some background and an apology.

On August 27, 2007 I sent a private email to Dean Anderson in a naive  
attempt to initiate a
dialogue about the tls-authz document.  After three weeks with Dean  
claiming a response was
imminent, I gave up and proceeded to have tls-authz moved from “Dead”  
to “Publication Requested”.

Amazingly enough, Dean suddenly found the time to write *numerous*  
messages!  Unfortunately,
none of these messages represented an attempt at constructive  
dialogue.  After several exchanges
with Dean, I recognized that these messages were a complete waste of  
time, as well as being
personally insulting.

The only rational response to such offensive messages is to blacklist  
the sender, but this avenue is
unavailable to me.  As AD, I need to be able to process any protests  
or appeals he might submit.
However, I do not believe I am required to respond to his messages in  
any other cases, and I will
take full advantage of that fact.  I have now chosen to simply ignore  
any message that does not
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |

Gmane