Subject: [Cfrg] CFRG guidelines for conduct

From: David McGrew <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:05:42 -0700

Hi Dan,

it is important that you understand the operational principles of  
CFRG.  We follow the IETF Guidelines for Conduct (http://www.ietf.org/ 
rfc/rfc3184.txt), which includes the following points (paraphrasing  
from Section 2):

    1. IETF participants extend respect and courtesy to their colleagues
        at all times.

     2. IETF participants develop and test ideas impartially, without
        finding fault with the colleague proposing the idea.  We dispute
        ideas by using reasoned argument, rather than through
        intimidation or ad hominem attack.

We welcome and value your comments, but we require that they follow  
these guidelines.  Unfortunately, several of your recent postings  
have not done so.  Please understand that we are not discouraging  
your participation in the RG.  However, we require that you not  
discourage the participation of others through discourtesy or  
intimidation.

Needless to say, these guidelines apply to everyone on the list.

David and Ran
CFRG co-chairs

On Oct 7, 2005, at 1:34 PM, D. J. Bernstein wrote:

> The UMAC authors continued making false ``rigorously proven'' security
> claims for many months, despite my polite explanations of exactly what
> was wrong with their claims. Labelling them as liars---which is
> exactly what they are---has finally succeeded in making them back  
> off from
> some of their false claims. It's vastly more important for the  
> users to
> have accurate security information than for the UMAC authors' fragile
> egos to be coddled.
>

_______________________________________________
Cfrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Oct 2005 17:51:33 -0000

Ad-hominem attacks are, by definition, attacks ``marked by an attack on
the opponent's character RATHER THAN by an answer to the contentions
made.'' (Emphasis added.)

None of my remarks have been ad-hominem attacks. Unlike certain people,
I have never attempted to dodge the security issues under discussion. I
don't use anyone's behavior as an excuse for dishonesty.

Furthermore, anyone who spends eight months refusing to correct false
security claims is not a colleague of mine, and deserves neither respect
nor courtesy. My colleagues understand that users need accurate security
information.

---D. J. Bernstein, Professor, Mathematics, Statistics,
and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago