On 3/10/2010 3:20 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
Hi Russ,
The appeal appears to run 145 pages, at least in my PDF viewer.
Attempting to navigate
this, I see "points of appeal", which has the following text:
...
Trying to combine this with the cover page text as best I can, this
appeal seems to request the IESG to
provide a set of warnings around this document and/or a disclaimer
saying that the technology is not ready
to use.
Folks,
I am increasingly concerned about efficiency in the IETF, given the loads
everyone is carrying. One source of inefficiency is having someone create work
for others, without having already done enough of their own work.
I firmly believe in the importance of the appeals mechanism, but I think there
are obligations on the person lodging the appeal, as well as on the body
processing the appeal.
It simply is not reasonable for the body to be forced to make guesses about the
nature of the appeal or to have to wade through massive documents in order to
understand the appeal. At the least, massive and/or confused appeals constitute
a denial of service attack.
An appeal needs to state its concerns and requirements clearly and concisely.
That might include masses of reference material, but the appeal statement,
itself, needs to be short and to the point.
When an appeal is lodged that fails these basic criteria, I strongly suggest
that it is imprudent to invest valuable IETF management time processing unclear
text or a mass of text.
The prudent action is to return it to the appellant, stating that it cannot be
processed until it has been made clear and concise.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf