Re: New Item for consideration - Read Acknologement Requirement...

["Frank Ellermann" <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>]

todd glassey wrote:
 
> IESG staffers do not respond to "READ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT" 
> requests for email submitted to them and I think this
> is a serious issue.

It only means that any "3798 to DS" move would run into
serious difficulties before the spam problem is solved.

> those people are unwilling to formally acknowledge that
> they are receiving communications from someone, and 
> this is a violation of the ethical operations of any
> standards process IMHO.

There's no "H" in "a modest proposal".  Nobody is forced
to implement RFC 3987, let alone forced to use it.  If
you have "official" business (appeal, proposed standards
action, etc.) and want it "on public record" just add a 
Cc: to a list with a public archive, or a Cc: iesg at ietf.

> the neglect and negligence under US Law to which the
> IETF WG's (and this one in particular) apparently
> asserts it is entitled to operate.

For "apparently asserts it is entitled to operate" I'm
tempted to check <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AWW>.  

> I want to place a "READ ACKNOWLEDGMENT" requirement
> in the BCP78 and BCP79 Document such that:
 
> "the WG Management and IETF Management are required
>  to formally acknowledge through 'READ ACKNOWLEDGMENT'
>  messages, that they in fact opened email".

I'd volunteer to post a "3798 to historic" before that
flies...  

> If you folks feel that BCP78/79 isn't the right place
> for that then please do tell where that belongs in
> IETF documents.

...it would belong in RFC 2026 or rather in Brian's 
"conflict" draft.  At one point in the appeal procedure
there is a required "attempt of peaceful settlement"
in the form of a mail to the IESG Chair.  But it's not
required that the IESG Chair replies or sends dubious
MDNs, it is also not required that the appellant knows
what an "MDN" is (and how to solicit it - unsolicited
MDNs are spam).

> :-)

Not funny.  I recall the day when I added a Cc: Brian
because RFC 2026 told me that I'm supposed to try it.

 Frank


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg