On Oct 27, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-10-28 06:36, Andrew Newton wrote:
On Oct 27, 2007, at 11:00 AM, David Morris wrote:
Well for starters, the drive-by hummers have to sit through the
session
and be present for the discussion (note I intentionally did not say
listen). They have to demonstrate enough interest in the IETF
process to
actually pay the costs of attending the session.
Most of the drive-by hummers have their head buried in their email
or other laptop work, so the expense they run for looking up to
hum once or twice isn't at all onerous. At least in this case,
the drive-by emailers had to spend some thought cycles on the
email they composed.
[By the way, when I find myself in a WG meeting I'm not prepared
for, I often have my head buried in the drafts being discussed,
so as to be able to understand the issues. Don't assume that a head
buried in a laptop is always doing email.]
Has there been an assumption that these "non-participants" sending
email have not read the tls-authz draft? Again, I see no difference
between what is happening on this list vs. what would happen in a F2F
meeting, except that I've never witnessed a chair or AD say "Well, it
is obvious you guys are all non-participants and therefore your hums
will be ignored" in a F2F meeting.
And I agree with Frank's point about these emails. They have been
unfairly classified as an "attack" or a DoS, perhaps to delegitimize
their content. And this episode doesn't really compare to previous
campaigns.
I agree that some of the content of the emails is nonsensical, but
the counter argument to them is that the document should be published
because the IETF process has a slot into which it will fit. Or in
other words, the IETF should publish it because it can. That does
not seem like a good enough reason.
Secondly, WG chairs and the responsible AD are well able to notice
that a meeting has been packed, and to interpret any straw poll
or hum accordingly.
Well, I'm not sure how often it happens. I can only think of 3
incidents in these past many years. But in a more recent one, the
ADs seemed to either be unaware or unprepared.
-andy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf