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

"HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS" <> Fri, 13 February 2009 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 933583A6BC5 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:03:06 -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 FyoFmJ987isN for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:03:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F3683A6B83 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:03:05 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: []
Received: (qmail 1072 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2009 17:03:10 -0000
Received: from (HELO ( by with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 13 Feb 2009 17:03:10 -0000
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n1DH39Wx005037; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:03:09 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n1DH37mq005019; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:03:08 -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 12:03:06 -0500
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
Thread-Index: AcmN9bJdsiRC/O/BRJ6Rlv6QEMug0wAAdd2A
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 17:03:06 -0000

From: Noel Chiappa [] 
>    > From: "HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS" <>
>    > We shouldn't assume that FSF will not learn from feedbacks
>- it continued to call for sending email to
Point taken. But still, FSF and RMS may hold philosophically rigid
positions, they surely can't turn a deaf ear to proposals to help them
get their reasoned position heard, which is to say "this and like future
email campaigns do nothing to IETF community's receptiveness to FSF's
advocated position, a well thought-out note from the FSF would suffice."

>    > Isn't that the right price to pay for an open forum? 
>You will note that I explicitly did not, in my suggested change to the
LC, say
>"close the IETF list to non-subscriber posts". However, that's a long
way from
>hanging out a "Kick Me" sign, which is what the current LC text ('send
>comments to') effectively amounts to, for those who don't
>carefully read it, and notice that it's directed to 'the IETF

As someone else pointed out earlier, asking only "the IETF community" to
respond to LC and even explicitly state that "one should only respond
(to LC) if he's subscribed to foo and bar IETF mailing list" will
probably not deter people from 'drive-by' subscribing and posting of
knee-jerk comments. So it doesn't really solve the problem. Even IETF
participants can and do get their posting 'right' suspended for various
reasons so the problem is not strictly from 'outside people'.

>    > If you know the secret handshake
>That's rather unfair.
But that's what will amount to if (1) IETF announces that comments to LC
be posted to a new mailing list; and (2) only the regulars know that
"the real place to be heard is at"; and (3) no regulars
would take the risk to subscribe to the new mailing list. So no comment
on the new mailing list would effectively be heard.

>[The] IETF is hardly a secret society which is picky about new blood 
This is certainly not what my post was supposed to imply. 

>	Noel

Jerry Huang