Subject: Fw: on IPv4 variants...

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:07:10 -0700

This is a serious allegation that merits investigation I think.  See below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "krose@ntia. doc. gov" <[email-masked]>; "ksmith@ntia. doc. gov"
<[email-masked]>; "mcade@att. com" <[email-masked]>; "Eric. Menge@sba.
gov" <[email-masked]>; "Elisabeth. Porteneuve@cetp. ipsl. fr"
<[email-masked]>; "orobles@nic. mx" <[email-masked]>;
"Amadeu@nominalia. com" <[email-masked]>; "f. fitzsimmons@att. net"
<[email-masked]>; "ken. fockler@sympatico. ca"
<[email-masked]>; "mkatoh@mkatoh. net" <[email-masked]>;
"hans@icann. org" <[email-masked]>; "shkyong@kgsm. kaist. ac. kr"
<[email-masked]>; "andy@ccc. de" <[email-masked]>; "junsec@wide. ad.
jp" <[email-masked]>; "quaynor@ghana. com" <[email-masked]>;
"karl@cavebear. com" <[email-masked]>; "linda@icann. org"
<[email-masked]>; "pindar@HK. Super. NET" <[email-masked]>; "vint
cerf" <[email-masked]>; "Richard J Sexton" <[email-masked]>; "@Quasar"
<[email-masked]>; "Ellen Rony" <[email-masked]>; "Jay@Fenello. com"
<[email-masked]>; "Jefsey Morfin" <[email-masked]>; "Joanna Lane"
<[email-masked]>; "Simon Higgs" <[email-masked]>; "froomkin@law. miami. edu"
<[email-masked]>; "love@cptech. org" <[email-masked]>; "Judith
Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>; "steve@stevecrocker. com"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 9:03 AM
Subject: on IPv4 variants...

> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg15777.html
> From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
>
> > - In the IPNG discussions, we decided to pursue IPv6 only.
>
> but if someone wanted to, would you have allowed them to persue a IPv4
> variant?
> ----
>
> Todd,
>
> People have clearly pursued "IPv4 variants" and the IETF does not like
that.
> The IETF censors people that design more useful protocols than their
members.
> After a period of time, the useful protocols then get renamed, with IETF
members
> claiming the invention and references to other people's work does not
exist.
> ICANN follows the same mentality. They walk all over other TLDs that exist
and
> assume they are the only game in town. They appeal to a brain-washed
population
> that has been told the I* society is the Internet. It is their way or the
highway.
> Jim Fleming

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:59:42 -0500

Note that I am Bcc'ing the IETF list on this response. If you really 
want to follow up to this message and re-include the  IETF, that's 
your choice, but I have done this to indicate my feeling that further 
public discussion is unwarranted. I am certainly happy to have 
private discussions on the matter.

On 4/16/02 at 10:07 AM -0700, todd glassey wrote:

>This is a serious allegation that merits investigation I think

The allegation is neither serious nor worthy of investigation. I have 
never heard any of the proponents of IPv4 variants claim that they 
were able to garner consensus in the IETF and in the face of that the 
IESG shut them down. What they do say is that they believe they had a 
better idea than the IETF and that the IETF ignored them. Life's 
tough. The fact that the IETF as a whole came to the rough consensus 
that they didn't want to work on one particular proposal is not 
censorship. Everyone who participates in a discussion with the IETF 
is a member of the IETF, including those folks who proposed IPv4 
variants. That they couldn't get rough consensus for their proposals 
is not problematic.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <mailto:[email-masked]>
QUALCOMM Incorporated