Re: Inputting mixed SC/TC (Re: [idn] A question...)

["D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>]

My comments on the level of consensus here are based directly on the
mailing-list discussions, and can easily be verified from the archives.

For example, Marc Blanchet reported the results of a straw poll in May
2001, showing that _fourteen_ group participants disagreed with the IDNA
approach. James Seng stated on 5 June 2001 that he would not ``declare
consensus on IDNA'' over that number of objections. Now he seems to have
decided to ram the proposal down our throats despite all the objections.

Dave Crocker says that my reports of these facts---and the facts
themselves---should be ignored because I've pointed out similar problems
in a few other working groups. He neglects to mention that my statements
in all of these cases are supported by extensive evidence. He also
neglects to mention his own role in those other groups.

For example, http://cr.yp.to/smtp/klensin.html explains many problems in
RFC 2821. It includes detailed historical notes on how our beloved John
Klensin, the document editor, deliberately created one of the problems:

   * Klensin, without WG approval, singlehandedly changed the text;
   * five people objected, and nobody answered the objections;
   * Chris Newman, DRUMS WG chair, issued a ``Call for Consensus'';
   * more people objected, and nobody answered the objections;
   * people at a meeting were overwhelmingly _against_ Klensin's change;
   * the meeting note-taker declared consensus _against_ the change;
   * Klensin issued another draft, leaving his change in place;
   * I objected again, showing exactly how the text had to be fixed;
   * Klensin issued yet another draft, leaving his change in place;
   * Newman sent out a Last Call, ignoring all of the objections;
   * Newman and our beloved Dave Crocker declared consensus.

The web page includes detailed quotes and more than enough references
for readers to verify everything I say from the mailing-list archives.

Klensin and Crocker keep claiming consensus. I keep saying that they're
liars. The difference is that my claims are backed up by the facts. I'm
perfectly willing to provide detailed evidence for everything I say. In
contrast, Klensin and Crocker slither away when they're asked to defend
their claims.

``So far, he has not believed his own claims enough to follow IETF
appeals procedures,'' Crocker writes in his latest message. In fact, I
tried the IETF appeals process many years ago, and found it to be a
sham. As described in http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers.html, I tried
the process again more recently, all the way to the ISOC board of
trustees; I again found the process to be a sham.

I recommend that anyone who is hurt financially by IETF file a United
States antitrust lawsuit against the document editors, committee chairs,
IESG members, IAB members, and ISOC members, as well as the companies
they work for. Antitrust law puts stringent requirements on the
procedures used by standards organizations; the IETF procedures don't
even come close to meeting those requirements. See

   http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=456&invol=556

for an example where a standards organization ended up paying $4.75
million for failing to impose procedures sufficient to prevent
anticompetitive behavior by a subcommittee chair.

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