Subject: Re: [Re: [Ieprep] ieprep-requirements-01 - reqs 6-10 - discussion request]

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 07:48:43 EST

[In response to my comments about what the Defense Department (who I am being 
paid to attend the IETF) wants:]

In a message dated 11/6/2002 12:12:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email-masked] 
writes:

> How many times do you need to be told that THIS IS NOT OKAY?  If you don't
> have the intellectual honesty and strength of conviction to say something
> because YOU believe it, THERE IS NO PLACE FOR YOU IN THE IETF.
> 
> You are participating as an INDIVIDUAL, not representing an organization.
> 
> We want to know what YOU think.  We already know that organizations are
> incapable of thought.
> 

[MAP] I'm getting very mixed messages. When I say what I think is required, 
you (and others) jump on me for not identifying what organization I 
"represent" that wants (or thinks they need) something or that other 
"organizations" should represent themselves. Examples:

On Oct 24 Ran wrote (in response to my claim that the Defense Dept. needed 
something):

If DoD does require this (and your lack of identification of affiliation
begs the question of whether you speak officially on the record for the
entire DoD), then I believe what you want is more like these words ...

On Oct 31 Woody wrote to Hal (in response to his statements about 
requirements for NCS):

Until such time as you get other organisations and other countries
to represent themselves here and present their perspectives, preferably
in their own documents about what services they use today and plan
to use in the future, the rest of us (who aren't monetarily or contractually
beholden to NCS) can only realistically know that the document represents
your views based on your experience at NCS.

So what is the real answer? Are you ready to seriously discuss what I or 
others personally think is needed, or do you want "organizations" to speak up 
first? Please make up your mind, since I haven't yet figured out which is the 
correct (or safe) path.

(I apologize to the others on this list who continue to see this continuing 
discussion, but I feel that all need to understand the ongoing difficulty we 
are having in this WG with moving things forward because the legitimate 
discussion of the issues is being overshadowed by such petty comments.)

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 09:51:33 -0500

On Thursday, Nov 7, 2002, at 07:48 America/Montreal, [email-masked] 
wrote:
> So what is the real answer? Are you ready to seriously discuss what I 
> or others personally think is needed, or do you want "organizations" 
> to speak up first? Please make up your mind, since I haven't yet 
> figured out which is the correct (or safe) path.

	We are interested in each person's personal views, but we also want 
each
person to be open about the source of their interests in this topic 
(e.g. the fact
that someone is being funded by DISA/NCS is relevant to the readers).  
This is
particularly relevant to the broader IETF community for folks who do 
not participate
in the IETF unless they get specifically funded to do so in a 
particular WG or
for a particular private agenda (such as the DISA/NCS agenda in this 
case),
less relevant for folks who participate despite lack of such directed 
funding
(e.g. jnc, who not everyone here knows and probably is not subscribed 
to IEprep,
though he does actively participate elsewhere).

	It is customary, but not required, for folks to use email addresses 
that
indicate such relationships.  For example, while someone in the IETF 
was employed
in the mid90s as a support contractor to NRL (which is a civil service 
lab,
not GOCO like NASA/JPL),  that person routinely used an email address 
which indicated
that the person worked at NRL for <particular contractor name>.  
Woody's email
clearly indicates he is with PCH and one can trivially go find out what 
PCH
does by looking at their web site.  An email like <[email-masked]> is 
totally
opaque and (absent clear identification of relationships), begs that 
question.
When a different long-time IETF participant was employed by a part of 
DoD that
did not have a very good email service to the public Internet, he used 
an account
at a nearby university, but clearly indicated that he was with DoD and 
which part
of DoD as best he could, so everything was in the open.

	So woody is right that the IETF's hope is that one will represent 
one's own
views -- particularly when those conflict directly with sponsor's 
views, the
community is also looking for full openness about what the potential 
sources of bias
are in any given person's stated views.  Direct funding to participate 
in an effort
on <foo> is a potential bias.  We all hope it does not actually 
translate into an
actual bias, at least within the IETF's scope.

	Hal's seeming reluctance to participate directly and respond in a 
timely manner
to questions directly relating to his employer's goals has not helped 
things at all,
IMNVHO.  It sure looks from the outside that Hal is trying to cover up 
his
financial relationships with various DISA contractors who are 
participating in
this WG and that appears that he's trying to use that obscurity to 
further his
private agenda.  This fosters widespread suspicion and mistrust, 
whereas openness
from the get go would have done quite the opposite.  An's participation 
has been helpful
in part because he's been very open about where he's coming from, by 
contrast, and
mostly because he is consistently an active participant here.

Sincerely,

Ran
[email-masked]

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

---

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:25:13 -0800 (PST)

On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
    > ...the Defense Department (who I am being paid to attend the IETF) wants:

No, it's us who are getting mixed messages.  You've repeated many times
that you're representing DoD interests and positions.  We've said that we
recognize that, and that that's not acceptable within the standards of
intellectual integrity which we hold ourselves to.  Now you're complaining
that we're treating you as though you're not speaking for yourself.

If you are indeed representing a position of the DoD, we can relate to
that, and deal with it accordingly.  The IETF reacts to outside events
continuously; events of political as well as technological nature.

If, on the other hand, you're representing yourself, and not the DoD,
you're very welcome to participate within the IETF process, including
other working groups like DIFFSERV and SIPPING.

However if you masquerade as an individual, and try to take DoD interests
before those working groups directly, they'll toss you out on your ear
again.

Which is why (and Scott, please excuse me for trying to paraphrase your
earlier statements) this working group exists: to work with the political
fact that the DoD's position is that it has requirements of the Internet
which it doesn't understand, and can't articulate in packet-switched
terms, but apparently feels strongly about.  That appears to me to be the
work of this working group: to try to understand what the DoD's perceived
needs are, and try to intepret them in some sort of actual quantitative
way that can be evaluated, and perhaps passed along for consideration to
specific protocol working groups if they're worthy of the attention of
those bodies.

                                -Bill

---

From: "Gary Thom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:52:43 -0500

> .... That appears to me to be the

If you understand this, then why do we continue to have these same inane
discussions, instead of discussing the technical issues and passing along
the needs to the other WGs???

Also, realize that Hal's work is not specifically DoD centric, but will be
used to support federal, state and local emergency management personnel,
police, fire and medical personnel who are trying to communicate in
emergency situations.

Speaking for MYSELF, if the world begins to use IP transport for public
telephony, I (personnally) think it would be important to support priority
access to the system for emergency communications. That way, when the Ivory
Tower begins to crumble, emergency personnel can coordinate rescue efforts
inspite of our continuing waste of bandwidth on this circular, sandbagging
trivia.

Gary Thom
Speaking on behalf of and for myself.

 --------------------------------------------
 Name   : Gary A. Thom
 Company: Delta Information Systems, Inc.
 Address: 300 Welsh Rd., Bldg 3
          Horsham, PA 19044 USA
 Phone  : +1-215-657-5270 x123
 Fax    : +1-215-657-5273
 E-mail : [email-masked]
 Website: www.delta-info.com
--------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Bill Woodcock
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 2:25 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Re: [Ieprep] ieprep-requirements-01 - reqs 6-10 -
> discussion request]
>
>

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 14:21:21 -0500

On Friday, Nov 8, 2002, at 10:52 America/Montreal, Gary Thom wrote:
> Also, realize that Hal's work is not specifically DoD centric,

NCS is part of DoD (until reorg'd into DHS).
By its very definition it is DoD-centric.

Further, it is tremendously US-centric (e.g. compare with Japan,
where ISPs have done zero/zip/nothing to support IAA because the
Japanese Govt adapted the IAA activity to the Internet -- rather than
trying to make the Internet look like the PSTN).

Ran