On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 02:11:28PM -0500, avri(_at_)psg(_dot_)com allegedly wrote:
To start, I must admit I have trouble equating an individual or
community's disagreement with a decision to a DOS attack, though I do
know how disconcerting and distracting an insistent complaint can be.
I just don't see equating people's concerns with maliciously motivated
attacks, no matter how persistent or obnoxious.
I also have no problem believing that the better option in any such
disagreement would be to respond early and with due diligence with a
public response (accountable and transparent) as opposed to just
deleting it because it appears frivolous. I think we need to be very
careful in defining an objection as frivolous before having given it
due diligence.
The problem in both paragraphs is that there is no "frivolous" bit to
check -- it's a subjective judgment, depending on the situation. We
could reach an objective definition, but it would be hard to do so, the
definition would be invalidated as conditions change, and we actually
don't need to take the time. We can leave it up to those receiving the
requests to judge frivolity, but also have ways to rein them in if
necessary. If someone feels they are being unfairly judged frivolous,
they can bring in support. If *they* think the person is being
frivolous, then he/she probably is. If he/she still disagrees, we have
the appeal process to bring in even more opinions. We don't need to
build everything into rules if the process has the right
characteristics.
But once having reviewed an issue and publishing a response, then
there would be no reason to re-review, thus avoiding an effect similar
to that from a DOS attack.
I'm not very good at being devious, but even I can think of small things
one could do that would force a re-review under any terms along those
lines.
I also think that history has shown us that appeals are relatively
rare and generally not frivolous. It is for this reason that I
advocate extending the current model of appeal, with the caveats about
not voiding contracts etc, to the IAD and IAOC. I think creating the
procedure to avoid so called 'DOS attacks' is, in effect, fighting a
problem we do not have.
But it costs no more to make sure we don't have it, using the process
currently on the table.
I am not concerned that the IESG (or IAB) would unreasonably protect the
IAOC, but if they do, we have a process for that as well.
swb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf