Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>]

yeah, I sympathize with the desire to be less vulnerable to asymmetric 
attacks, and also with the general notion that if your appeal has 
sufficient merit to sway the iesg, iab, etc then you can probably find 
some people outside those bodies who think your appeal has merit.

I also believe that if "just anyone" can declare that an appeal has 
merit, the nutcases will band together to support one another.

I just don't think that IETF meeting attendance is an appropriate way to 
 decide who is a nutcase and who isn't.

-------- Original Message --------

> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:31:57AM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-appeal-support
> >
> > ...it's just wrong.
>
> I think he's got a good idea.  It maybe could use some tweaking.
>
> The IETF should stop doing things that are not relevant to its
> constituency and serve only to waste its (donated) time-dollars.
>
> This includes but is not limited to: appeals from total nuts.
>
> One perfectly acceptable tactic, which Olafur has codified in this
> draft, is to limit appeals to only those made by mixed nuts.
>
> I think it would be more productive to suggest alternative tactics
> than to ask Olafur to withdraw his draft.  We would all like to
> know what other options there are.
>
> > I didn't try to find three "paying members" to
> > support that opinion, and nobody else is "qualified" to support it :-(
>
> ...nor would you have had to.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf