Randy - understand that someone responding to 20 comments to them, if they
were legitimately to them is totally reasonable. So is making one of two
posts a day on each of the WG's active topics and probably also posting one
new topic a day as well
so lets total this up
1 new topic post
2 unsolicited posts on currently debated topics; and
a response to each legitimate individual response (per topic) to those three
new posts or any still in-process posts.
So lets see -
someone posts an idea which inflames half the membership of the list and...
everyone responds - so say there are 30 active members of the list and 25 of
them reply. By the above rule the posting party is entitled to respond to
those 25 retorts to their post - this by the way is usually referred to as
"vetting" in IETF WG Lingo so... its right on scope. So lets say 25
responses to the new post. By the way - multiply this by three to get the
real numbers but we will leave it where it is for our totals.
As to the previous posts - say there are 10 responses to the previous day's
post and another 5 from the day before that adding an additional 15 posts to
the number...
So now lets add it up and see what the IETF has gotten themselves into this
time:
3 daily new material posts
25 responses to the new posts (which only assumes that they responded to one
of the three posts)
15 responses to the old posts
--------
43 posts
Hell I can easily see 100 posts a day being totally reasonable per person.
Remember this is about participation.
Todd
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn(_at_)mindspring(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: administrative question on RFC publications
Hi -
From: "todd glassey" <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>
To: "todd glassey" <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>;
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: administrative question on RFC publications
...
Anyone else have commentary on this?
...
Proceeding as you suggest would provide yet another avenue for
DoS attacks on the process. No doubt some unscrupulous party
is already contemplating this kind of attack on an extraordinarily
innocuous BCP.
Randy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf