I cannot post to the IETF list (because of prior misconduct
by Housley
and others regarding my previous complaints of failures to
file IPR
disclosures on other drafts). I would appreciate it if
someone would
repost this to the ietf list.
Following will be my last response to Polk.
Inline:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I think the IETF already sent a very strong signal that
it won't
> close its eyes to late disclosures for standards track
documents,
> by removing this from the standards track. It seems
like double
> jeopardy to use this as an argument against
Experimental status
> too - as Tim has said, there's nothing in our rules to
block
> publication as Experimental after an IPR disclosure.
"Double jeopardy" is the legal term for twice
being at risk for the same
crime. I suppose it is good to implicitly recognize that
something
wrong happened, here. But the IETF has not explicitly
recognized the
gravity of the problem, and therefore has not rehabilitated
Housley or
Brown. Indeed, nothing bad at all seems to have happened to
them as a
result of their misconduct; not even an official email
censuring their
conduct; no resignation; nothing. (see
http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/People/Housley/index.html). Housley and
Brown very nearly succeeded in circumventing the IETF
process by not
properly disclosing the facts according to their obligations
and duties.
Their near success and lack of penalty has emboldened Tim
Polk to
attempt to circumvent the process again. Consequently, we
have yet
another, new violation of the rules:
Tim Polk admits to me privately that he is a close personal
friend of
Housley, and that their families vacation together. This is
a conflict
of interest in violation of the ISOC conflict of interest
policy for
senior staff, because the patent directly and indirectly
benefits Brown,
Housley, and Polk by more than $10,000.
The ISOC has a conflict of interest policy at
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/conf
lictofinterest.shtml
The ISOC policy applies to "Trustees, Institutional
Officers and Senior
Staff". The IESG members are "Senior Staff",
because they are volunteer
senior management employees insured by the ISOC.
Polk says he doesn't need to announce his conflict of
interest because
'Dean Anderson is one of the few IETFers who doesn't know of
Housley and
Polk's close friendship'
I have also quoted the law of agency to Mr. Polk; The Law
of Agency
defines his duties to an employer. Polk has apparently
ignored the law.
It is not in the interests of the IETF or the ISOC to
approve this
patented protocol, and nor to effectively ignore the
misconduct
involved.
It is not double jeopardy to prevent Housley and Brown from
further
circumventing the IETF process.
> > 2. The authorisation extensions have recently been
implemented by a free
> > software library, and problems were found in a
couple of areas:
> > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current
/msg01518.html
>
> I agree that these points would need to be addressed by
the authors
> while reviewing Last Call comments, but they don't seem
critical
> for an Experimental document, do they? Also see
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current
/msg01519.html
What does seem critical for an experimental document is real
research
and development. There is none of that here. This is a
proprietary
commercial protocol promoted by Red Phone Security, IETF
Chair Russ
Housley (employed by Red Phone Security to produce this
draft), and the
cronies of Housley, including Polk.
--Dean
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better
service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg ietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
|
