[notacoward]

"I would be very concerned if the chair of the IETF was seeking to quash discussion of this type."

Is it trying to quash the discussion, or merely move it to an appropriate (and more effective) forum?

"That would only prove there is a serious problem."

Only if you accept Fielding's attribution of motive, which is a bit circular. What if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Fielding himself is the bad actor here? Would this still prove there's a serious problem, or would it be addressing a problem? See how it all depends on which assumptions you start with? That's why allowing stuff like this into a supposedly rational debate is so problematic. Do you think it would be useful for anyone to make assumptions about your agenda*? People need to stick to the facts, not try to paint anybody who disagrees with them as thralls to some evil agenda.