RE: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]

"HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS" <> Fri, 13 February 2009 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5AA73A6C00 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:43:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ix7j-t46IG5N for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:43:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B10AD3A6869 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:43:44 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: []
Received: (qmail 17999 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2009 15:43:50 -0000
Received: from (HELO ( by with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 13 Feb 2009 15:43:50 -0000
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n1DFhnQh006403; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:43:50 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n1DFhiEN006372; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:43:44 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:43:44 -0500
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
Thread-Index: AcmN66XkGCbPL6YXQ1KNvcHw7N/3PgAA3MGw
References: <>
To: Noel Chiappa <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:43:45 -0000


Noel Chiappa said on Friday, February 13, 2009 8:59 AM
>    > From: Henk Uijterwaal <>
>    > What is exactly the problem we're trying to solve here?
>Having people's mailboxes explode from ill-considered public pressure
>campaigns? At the start, I got as much email in one hour as I often get
in a

That's really not the problem, is it? The problem is that we are forced
to deal with "ill-considered public pressure campaigns". I forgot who
made it but the previous proposal of subtle changes in the LC language
would go a long way of dissuading future campaigns, IMHO. On the other
hand, why not have someone in an official capacity (IETF Chair or some
such) work with FSF on the best way to contribute to IETF work, instead
of instigating email campaigns that only serves to irk the IETF
community in general?
Their position (as stated in John Sullivan's email) is not that
unreasonable. We shouldn't assume that FSF will not learn from feedbacks
- aside from condescending comments.

>    > Do we really want to introduce all kinds of complex procedures
>    > based on one incident?
>Well, it's not the first time - the FSF pulled the same stunt back in
>of 2007. And no doubt, if it continues to be allowed, it will happen

Isn't that the right price to pay for an open forum? Or are we going to
have a committee pre-screen submitted for technical merits before being
posted to mailing lists? 

>My original proposal was very simple: create one more list as a formal
>place for LC's, since many of the FSF drive-by posters were saying
'but, but
>your LC said send comments here'.
>Anyway, nothing is stopping an IETF person from sending email to the
IETF list
>about something they want to bring up there, so if an LC has something
>really bugs someone in the IETF, they can still send email to the IETF
>about it.

Of course, this works. If you know the secret handshake, your opinion
will be heard; else your comments are delivered to a bit bucket where no
one with apparently sound technical mind will ever see - since _they_
know better than to subscribe to "LC comment's mailing list". 

>	Noel

Jerry Huang, AT&T Labs, +1 630 810 7679
Ietf mailing list