Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108

Keith Moore <> Tue, 04 August 2020 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4921B3A0C25 for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 09:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.845
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.845 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JU_dzS4gF3lK for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 09:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98D103A0C1B for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 09:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8841A5C0112; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 12:46:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 04 Aug 2020 12:46:19 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=5oV0wgKt4ZBUwRVsz9oXT762oMkj8C7JD9OikOqu9 8I=; b=Juqy2vUqt2KiirzIU5m3iYmcidTqCpyHz4+eDkAFsStzJIM6qttyVzXzx VfZABsUAuMrHDnT4qWeGd3rNGWCaDCHC5vb6K1xQMtWL3drZXQA2GRsKYvQWL93o BzjxSRwcU6X411vRQ8YXH+XgyW1IRhutcR4lVlFUgytetnp9Rd9kEvnTddTx+Fcc pcT2Y5GnFFlNZbN/DHR/dB7Ujsccz/dEKFRtqhk2byrmAI93TRHh+XqFY/gd0DXk 2vEk+97wxE+DTmMt4PWWRvB2PaJJ8YFcn7U3eg5TlOV+V92TqSjMNb+ZVZzhE/qg fGfbMqe+aRVbJBNyOEambdDLjPEWg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:2pApX6hnsWmkrIggIcWoabPtPhHOMIh7LNVNQDfR39zMLR2xII5ViQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrjeeigddutdeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeehnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeehudfhleduge euteevvefhueejjeefffefteettddvleefgfekieekheejffdvffenucfkphepuddtkedr vddvuddrudektddrudehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:2pApX7AugOr6Jj48duXwrJ6CC4r0JLTAOUTCzALNn6PyXG1H632XkA> <xmx:2pApXyFZJqQG-3c1ZcPQQ6Q8Okrv1U7cULgbVUsKYb5f09wELUK_PQ> <xmx:2pApXzQFt2XFjVZMqZRzcKA3tEbjgbA-W1tLcbsIv8igN-LTI-40Xg> <xmx:25ApX28f2K4sDpvf1tqjdMGHvMWEdmPumCKRhTRJn9shjKu6W0WFVw>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 975FB328005D; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 12:46:18 -0400 (EDT)
To: Ted Lemon <>
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <LO2P123MB21738E9CA388ED45F25072B9E64A0@LO2P123MB2173.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 12:46:18 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for IETF 108 attendees <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 16:46:22 -0000

On 8/4/20 12:36 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:

> Also, some IETF participants no doubt would consider any tool that 
> prevents filibustering to be unsuitable.

"filibustering" is an interesting word.  Historically in the US Senate 
the filibuster was used to make sure that any bills passed by the US 
Congress were a compromise between competing interests, rather than an 
exercise of tyranny of the majority.   This was a feature rather than a 
bug.   For that reason, I do not support efforts to eliminate the 
filibuster in the Senate.

The problem in the current US Congress is that US politics has become so 
polarized that such compromises that are needed to make sure that laws 
serve a broad spectrum of interests have often become impossible.

I note that the US Senate has also long had rules to limit debate so 
that a filibuster was not a denial-of-service attack on the entire Senate.

Anyway, I suspect by "filibustering" you mean something approximating 
"denial of service attack".   I agree that DoS attacks aren't 
appropriate.   Let someone have their say for some reasonable amount of 
time.   Cut them off when that time has been exceeded and/or when they 
start repeating themselves.   They can always present their argument to 
the mailing list, write an Internet-Draft that presents an alternative 
view, bring up issues at WGLC and IETF LC, or even appeal.

But I also want to point out that in a group that purports to make 
decisions by consensus, shouting down a lone alternative voice is 
another form of DoS attack.   And some people, I suspect, want to be 
able to keep doing that.