On 2007-10-27 11:13, Bernard Aboba wrote:
I agree. The DOS attack on this list seems to be from people
who haven't read RFC 2026 and use meaningless phrases like
"experimental standard." In fact, publishing this as an experiment
to see if it gets implemented and deployed despite the IPR issue
seems like *exactly* the right thing to do.
I agree that experimental status is the right thing here, but I
am not clear that this determination is being made consistently.
If one judges by the level of encumbrance, maturity, etc. then this
specification is actually in much better shape than other specifications
that been approved as Proposed Standard, some not too long ago.
So, the question is whether the IETF has some kind of process and
procedure by which to make these decisions -- or whether we just allow
decisions to be made based on whether a particular
specification gets on people's radar screen and "interpretation" of the
resulting emails by the IESG.
Actually, yes, we do leave the IESG to make the judgement, subject
to appeal to the IAB. I also think it's reasonably clear that the
IESG is allowed to recognize that "circumstances alter cases" rather
than to automatically follow precedents. But that's certainly a
matter of interpretation.
With respect to judging whether a particular set of emails
constitutes a DoS attack or an expression of the will of the IETF
community -- RFC 2026 doesn't impose a "poll tax" on posters, requiring
that they demonstrate knowledge of IETF process to express their opinions.
That's quite correct. But when judging the rough consensus of the IETF,
I believe that the IESG is fully entitled to consider whether multiple
similar messages from people who have rarely if ever participated in
IETF activities carry as much weight as messages from active
Ietf mailing list