FW: Suspension of posting rights for Jim Fleming
And another time your 'friend' has been suspended on the IETF list Mr. Baptista. This one is for the record, so that everyone who finds your 'nice' one-sided story also gets to know the other side. Enough of this, back to ops. Greets, Jeroen -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf@ietf.org [mailto:owner-ietf@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand Sent: Thursday, 12 September 2002 16:09 To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Suspension of posting rights for Jim Fleming After having reviewed Jim Fleming's recent contributions to the IETF list, and having found no trace of modification to his behaviour after the warning he received on August 23, I have suspended his posting privilleges. This revocation will remain in effect for 2 months, until November 12. Harald Alvestrand IETF Chair
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Jeroen Massar wrote:
And another time your 'friend' has been suspended on the IETF list Mr. Baptista. This one is for the record, so that everyone who finds your 'nice' one-sided story also gets to know the other side.
Everone who participates in these conferences knows he's always being suspended. I think thats the norm and not that unusual for him. You also forgot to point out that he's suspended on NANOG too. And maybe the GA@DNSO. Does not change the fact no one has yet challenged him on the technical issues he's raised. They just complain about his posting habits etc. etc. It's like watching a room full of techs who have taken up the profession of interior decorators and argue how the technology would look so much better in a red backdrop - very droll ;) I expect Jim will be thrown out of many more conferences before the year is done. Now if you'd like to challenge him on the technical issues - why don't we take this private with Jim? I'll watch and ask questions. regards joe
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf@ietf.org [mailto:owner-ietf@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand Sent: Thursday, 12 September 2002 16:09 To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Suspension of posting rights for Jim Fleming
After having reviewed Jim Fleming's recent contributions to the IETF list, and having found no trace of modification to his behaviour after the warning he received on August 23, I have suspended his posting privilleges.
This revocation will remain in effect for 2 months, until November 12.
Harald Alvestrand IETF Chair
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:46:46 EDT, Joe Baptista said:
Does not change the fact no one has yet challenged him on the technical issues he's raised. They just complain about his posting habits etc. etc.
OK. Want a technical issue? He's not allowed to redefine the 8-bit TOS field as 2 4-bit address extensions, since he doesn't give a spec of how an intermediate router is supposed to know which way to interpret the TOS field, nor does he suggest an API change or DNS interface changes (for all his babbling about using AAAA records, those are defined to carry IPv6 addresses, he'll have to find some other way to carry his IPv8 addresses). Oh wait.. that's two technical issues, and they've been pointed out to Jim before, multiple times, and Jim's never bothered fixing his proposal to deal with them. The part about his posting habits is the fact that he insists on re-hashing the SAME ideas even after he's been told multiple times exactly why his ideas won't work (see the above paragraph). It's especially annoying when he insists on dragging his ideas into totally unrelated threads.
I expect Jim will be thrown out of many more conferences before the year is done.
Drunks are thrown out of bars all the time too. I'm not sure that you really want to make this point.
Now if you'd like to challenge him on the technical issues - why don't we take this private with Jim? I'll watch and ask questions.
We'll be more than happy to do so once Jim shows the slightest sign of interest in fixing his proposal to deal with the technical arguments that have *already* been made. Most engineers have learned there is little to be gained in fine-tuning the valve timing on a gasoline-powered internal combustion engine when the pistons and crankshaft are missing... Give it a rest, Joe.
thanks for the techi response - its appreciated and the first i've received. Fleming can't post here but he is monitoring so maybe he can respond in private to us. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communications & Computing Facility a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:46:46 EDT, Joe Baptista said:
Does not change the fact no one has yet challenged him on the technical issues he's raised. They just complain about his posting habits etc. etc.
OK. Want a technical issue? He's not allowed to redefine the 8-bit TOS field as 2 4-bit address extensions, since he doesn't give a spec of how an intermediate router is supposed to know which way to interpret the TOS field, nor does he suggest an API change or DNS interface changes (for all his babbling about using AAAA records, those are defined to carry IPv6 addresses, he'll have to find some other way to carry his IPv8 addresses). Oh wait.. that's two technical issues, and they've been pointed out to Jim before, multiple times, and Jim's never bothered fixing his proposal to deal with them.
The part about his posting habits is the fact that he insists on re-hashing the SAME ideas even after he's been told multiple times exactly why his ideas won't work (see the above paragraph). It's especially annoying when he insists on dragging his ideas into totally unrelated threads.
I expect Jim will be thrown out of many more conferences before the year is done.
Drunks are thrown out of bars all the time too. I'm not sure that you really want to make this point.
Now if you'd like to challenge him on the technical issues - why don't we take this private with Jim? I'll watch and ask questions.
We'll be more than happy to do so once Jim shows the slightest sign of interest in fixing his proposal to deal with the technical arguments that have *already* been made. Most engineers have learned there is little to be gained in fine-tuning the valve timing on a gasoline-powered internal combustion engine when the pistons and crankshaft are missing...
Give it a rest, Joe.
Thus spake "Joe Baptista" <baptista@dot-god.com>
Does not change the fact no one has yet challenged him on the technical issues he's raised. They just complain about his posting habits etc. etc. It's like watching a room full of techs who have taken up the profession of interior decorators and argue how the technology would look so much better in a red backdrop - very droll ;)
The very few legitimate technical issues I've seen him raise were dealt with several years ago and documented in RFCs. The vast majority of what he posts, however, is inflamatory political diatribe which only appears to have technical content to non-technical folks such as reporters. Jim has set himself up to be a martyr instead of trying to be productive. He clearly has no interest in working within the existing engineering framework nor with its consensus model. Until he does so, anybody with half a clue will ignore him for good reason. S
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Joe Baptista wrote:
Does not change the fact no one has yet challenged him on the technical issues he's raised.
This is just because there weren't any. Discussing anything with Jim is like trying to explain to an inventor of perpetuum mobile who never bothered to learn any physics why his latest and greatest design will not work. I have looked at his proposals (I do not claim to be able to understand all of it - it is all so charmingly vague) and saw no hints of anything which could be helpful in solving the real problems (i.e. routing stability, need for faster convergence, traffic engineering, efficient congestion control in presence of short flows, etc, etc). Claiming that extending the number of bits in an address will solve all Internet ills is quite foolish. In fact, it'll only make them worse by making prefix aggregation less efficient (and routing tables bigger). To be fair, in my opinion, IPv6 also suffers from the same short-sightedness; although many things in it are quite nice I think it does not do enough to justify blowing up the only chance to introduce major changes to IP. I'd say any changes should be deferred until there's a real advance in the global routing technology; not just more of the same. --vadim
participants (5)
-
Jeroen Massar -
Joe Baptista -
Stephen Sprunk -
Vadim Antonov -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu