RE: Disappointed

Yep, I'm disappointed too. 

>   I am also disappointed at the putting off of the extremely 
> important non-technical IPR issue until it was too late.  The 
> members of IETF, wanting to be faithful to the 'E' in the 
> name, naturally want to concentrate on engineering issues at 
> least primarily, but even ONLY engineering, if that's 
> possible.  I would like to suggest that if that is the 
> desire, it is an impossibility.  You cannot compartmentalize 
> your work that way.  Especially in today's world.

That I think is the primary lesson. IETF is not structured to
deal with non-engineering issues. But it had no choice. I hope
these sort of issues are being looked at in the IETF review. 

I also have some suggestions with overall technical approach, but
as they are out of scope for MARID, and for fear of having my
ideas patented by others to the exclusion of open solutions, I'll
look for another forum to raise those.


Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O. Box 10670 Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000 Australia
Tel (617) 3870 1181
Mobile (614) 1966 7772
www.ianpeter.com
www.nethistory.info
www.internetmark2.org (Internet Analysis Report - 2004 now
available)
www.theinternettapes.com (check out the new Internet history
Audio CD and Ebook at this site)

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul
Iadonisi
> Sent: Thursday, 23 September 2004 7:37 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Disappointed
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 16:29, Greg Connor wrote:
> 
>   Overall, very well stated.
> 
> [snip]
> 
>   However:
> 
> > To the rest of the WG I say: we have been fooled once by 
> the likes of 
> > MS; let's not let it happen again.
> 
>   This makes it sound like that it took this event to teach 
> people.  I pretty much refrained from any so-called 
> Microsoft-bashing on this list.  But over and over and over 
> again, I find that people who claim that we should give the 
> company the benefit of the doubt, forget one very important 
> point: there is no doubt.  Microsoft's goals in regards to 
> patents, the GPL, and FOSS in general are a matter of public
record. 
> The company was only living up to what their executives have 
> said in the press.  This WG chose to ignore that, instead 
> prohibiting any discussion of so-called "hidden" agenda.  It 
> wasn't hidden at all.
>   I am also disappointed at the putting off of the extremely 
> important non-technical IPR issue until it was too late.  The 
> members of IETF, wanting to be faithful to the 'E' in the 
> name, naturally want to concentrate on engineering issues at 
> least primarily, but even ONLY engineering, if that's 
> possible.  I would like to suggest that if that is the 
> desire, it is an impossibility.  You cannot compartmentalize 
> your work that way.  Especially in today's world.
>   I would like to admonish everyone here that if we are going 
> to involve Microsoft AT ALL in any future MTA authorization 
> efforts to remain extremely wary.  The company has shown its 
> colors.  Richard Stallman was right and frankly, at least in 
> this particular instance, should not have been silenced.  
> EXPECT it to happen again and do not accept anything less 
> that full disclosure of ALL IPR.  And show an unwaivering 
> preference for unencumbered technologies.  Don't wait until 
> all technical matters are worked out.  I'm not saying 'to 
> hell with procedure'.  I'm just cautioning against letting 
> anyone waste a colossal amount of our time again.
> 
> --
> -Paul Iadonisi
>  Senior System Administrator
>  Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist  Ever see 
> a penguin fly?  --  Try Linux.
>  GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
> 
>