Subject: [Ltru] AD Appeal Response: Off-list RFC 3934 warning to Jefsey Morfin

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 09:53:11 -0500

I have completed my review of the appeal described below.  The following
references describe additional information that I requested and received as
part of this review:
 
The warning:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg04110.html
 
The appeal, clarified:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg04113.html
 
Citations provided by Mr. Morfin in response to AD request:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg04114.html
 
As described in the clarified appeal, the appeal contains two claims: that
the warning was inappropriate because the message that prompted the warning
was not related to a topic that was closed when the working group reached
consensus on a position, and that working group co-chair Randy Presuhn did
not correctly determine consensus to close this issue.  Mr. Morfin also
alleges that several of his contributions have not been tracked as "issues
to be resolved" as a result of this consensus-measuring failure.
 
Point #1: Was the warning appropriate?  I believe it was.  The working group
considered the "0-" escape issue, tracked it as issue #1092, rejected it,
and the co-chair declared the topic closed.  Mr. Morfin's message includes
this text:
 
"The "0-" userspace URI-tag RFC 4151 is now published"
 
If new information was intended it was not presented clearly.  This part of
the appeal is thus denied.
 
Point #2: Did co-chair Randy Presuhn fail to track issues and measure
working group consensus?
 
I must first note that every "issue" sent to a working group mailing list
for discussion does not necessarily require tracking.  The working group
must accept the issue and agree to work on it.  The citations provided by
Mr. Morfin include two issues that were accepted, tracked, and resolved by
the working group, and a third that was not tracked.  I find that the reason
it was not tracked is because there was no agreement within the working
group to work on this alleged issue.  Mr. Presuhn correctly measured working
group consensus and correctly tracked and resolved those issues that the
working group agreed to explore.
 
This last part of the appeal, and thus the entire appeal, is denied.

Scott Hollenbeck
LTRU Area Advisor

  _____  

From: r&d afrac [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 9:22 PM
To: Scott Hollenbeck
Cc: Martin Duerst; Randy Presuhn
Subject: Appeal - Off-list RFC 3934 warning to Jefsey Morfin

Dear Scott,
I am sorry but I can only appeal with very serious reasons. They show the
very nature of this warning and that the text you shepher in front of the
IESG does not result from a concensus, on my key point; and that this is not
by mistake.

APPEAL
-------------
Of the October 26th warning and of the declaration of a consensus over the
RFC 3066 bis document.

1. The exotic "#1092" is not concerned. The issue "#1092" says:

<quote>
Sujet: WGLC treat 0- as escape from syntax

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03099.html
requests that the proposal to use 0- as an escape, introduced
in message
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03061.html
be given a distinct issue number.
Note that the resolution of other issues, e.g., #1072
subsumes this issue and precludes the suggested solution.
consequently, this issue is marked as "rejected" 
</unquote>

A look at the quoted mails shows that Point "#1092" covers the discussion
between format:

x-you-could-simply-string-together-any-addition-al-attribut-es-you-

like-as-long-as-they-are-broken-into-clusters-of-8-or-fewer-ascii-

>> characte-rs

and format 
"0-language-tags.x-tags.com:singapourien.jefsey-languages.com:20051203160809
A-2001:879:98F6::789C:1236"

It supports the concept that "0-" would _terminate_ the ABNF, permitting
afteward a free format.

2. this mail concerns the inclusion of information of the type:

    "0-tag:xyzzy.claranet.de,2005:troll-alert"
    from <tag:xyzzy.claranet.de,2005:troll-alert> for example,

as documented by an opponent who has well understood the proposition.

It supports the concept that "0-" would include information respecting the
RFC 4151 ABNF, avoiding the RFC 3066 bis to conflict with RFC 4151

I note that this proposition has been made sevreal times at the WG and was
allways opposed the misrepresentation above. That this proposition has the
significant advantage to support ISO 11179 compliance, and the proposed
wording for ISO 639-4 which underlay the ISO 639 series (the WG-ltru charter
calls for the homogenous support). That due to the misrepresentation above
the "consensus" has been to oppose an ISO 11179 conformance what is highly
detrimental to the architectural deployment of the Internet.

That this proposition has therefore been made during the IESG LC and is
therefore a pending representation.

That RFC 4151 (as demonstrated by the quoted response) permits to identify
and document the language of a document. That as an existing informational
RFC it describes a practice of the Global Internet Community the WG-ltru
Chair has refused to consider.

That most of all in this particular appeal, this information concerns both
the passed registry debate and the _current_ filtering debate. 

3. the pratice documented by RFC 4151 creates a problem to the currently
discussed issue of the WG-ltru, i.e. filtering. When a language information
is delivered through an RFC 4151 conformant format, 

- it can be resolved in (among others) the RFC 3066 bis format
- it can be filtered exactly in the same way. 

But this (may) rise(s) some issues which have not yet been considered.  

This "warning" is therefore a way to _influence_ the current debate on
filtering. It illustrates the way the co-Chair has objected the propositions
I made to find the most adequate solution to the users and SSDOs needs and
to the RFC 4151 documented practices. This makes RFC 3066 bis to still
ignore them. This is also something the Members of the WG ignore. May be
even the authors and their small number of supporters, while they want to
exclude and constrain these needs and practices. As if they wanted their pet
software products not to be changed or challenged.

I note that I have patiently accepted to be exposed to that practice.
Because the experience of centuries of missionaries has shown that it was a
pretty efficient manner to introduce the proper solutions. Because, as
today, error and bias expose themselves.

4. all this shows that:

    - my post does not concerns #1092
    - that my position on this issue as constantly been misrepresented by
the co-Chair, as it is today
    - that in so doing he had coached the WG-ltru n such a way that my
_only_ objection to the current text (the inclusion of the RFC 4151
described practices) had been suposedly consensually rejected and my other
concurrent propositions have been disregarded on similar gronds.
    - that he has constantly used private warnings with no more substance
that this one, since:
      - this comments introduces new information which concerns (but not
affect) the indirect access to the langtags and the user security
      - it concerns a proposition I made which has never been discussed
      - which is pending in front of the IESG, IAB and the community (I
never hiden that I will appeal for it)
      - which is pertinent to the current debate of the WG-ltru
      - it concerns the current debate over filtering.

5. I note that in so doing the co-Chair, as in all the other occasions, uses
warnings or suspension to support a delictuous action of a Member and has so
encouraged them deliberately creating the deleterious climate of this WG..
Ban (now too old for appeal) was over an oppostion to a racist position of a
Member, a recent warning against a reaction to stop a similar creep. He
should have taken care of instead of encouraging it. Today it is used to
support a blattant ad-hominem and to threat my right to appeal.

6. I could consider that this is only a continuation of the personal
feelings the co-Chair expressed in a public ad-hominem full of .. disputable
affirmations, but ...

- this case concerns a point of high commercial, political and Internet
architectural impact. This is over a document the co-Chair tries to
influence as the manager of a tracking system he created and the way he
demonstrates by this case.

- this demonstrates that there is not a single way to accomplish the purpose
of the langtags as affirmed by the BCP qualification of RFC 3066 bis. This
is something a simple initial review of the Charter would have shown. A
review I asked for many times, the co-Chair opposed - in spite of its
"thorny" (his qualification) points - but promised to carry at the end of
the process. This validation has not been carried yet.

- this increases the legal risks related to the proposed text since there is
now an existing RFC documented alternative which does not run into that
risk. This should be mentionned into the security considerations: they only
mention the risk and not the RFC 4151 solution.

- all these points have been hidden or reduced in the view of the community
and of the IETF, in misprepresenting it - as it is still done today - with
the authority of a WG-Chair. This makes the WG-ltru, the IETF and the IESG
feel my key proposition has been discussed, opposed and consensually
refused, what it has _never_ been discussed. Knowing that this point was
complex and that this affimation would be controverted, I purposely never
quoted a key aspect which would have resulted from any serious discussion. 

It is easy to show if I am right or if I am wrong. I just introduced it in
this mail for the first time.

For all the reasons above I appeal of the today warning of co-Chair Randy
Presun and of his evaluation of consensus concerning the RFC 3066 bis. 

I note that I have no feeling concerning Randy Presuhn, except for his
behaviour over the "Route 666" issue. This is purely technical and I am only
motivated by the good of the IETF and of the users. I fully understand the
pressure and the load you all meets. I am sorry to add burdens, but this
time there is a full exposure of the oily mechanism I am myself submitted
to, for so many months. 

There is a clear exposure of the bias which lead to the presented document
(I think I positively contributed to, in spite or becaus of the opposition).
This document is wrong, but can be made right in includint the only
proposition I consider important: compatibility with its RFC competitor. I
certainly understand it breaks the notion of immediate exclusive. Is that a
reason to hide them to the WG-ltru members?

I think the exclusive comes from quality rather than misrepresentation, or
typos.
jfc morfin

At 01:14 27/10/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:

Hi -
> From: "r&d afrac" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: RFC 4151 on The 'tag' URI Scheme
>
> At 22:07 26/10/2005, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> >JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> >
> > > The "0-" userspace URI-tag RFC 4151 is now published.
> ><tag:xyzzy.claranet.de,2005:troll-alert>  My first tag.
> 
> This will be usefull in appeal to illustrate the attitude of this WG.
> jfc

Since RFC 4151 does not satisfy the requirements for extensions
set forth in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt 
section 3.7, I had interpreted Jefsey's posting as a joke, and had
intended to simply ignore it.

Since he now appears to be serious, I guess we'll have to treat it
as yet another example of his refusal to give up on issue #1092
(issue tracker at https://rt.psg.com/ user and password "ietf").

I regard as disruptive continued attempts to re-open closed
issues without providing new rationale.  Continuation of this
or other disruptive activities may resulting in the suspension of
Jefsey's posting privileges to the ltru WG mailing list for a period
of up to 30 days.

Randy, ltru co-chair

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