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

David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> Mon, 16 February 2009 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <dwm@xpasc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34F6F3A69FA for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:59:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.438
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.162, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9LZnh7Hv1jjo for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:59:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from email.xpasc.com (email.xpasc.com [65.85.17.142]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 227143A68CB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:59:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bslepgate.xpasc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bslepgate.xpasc.com (Postfix-out) with ESMTP id CBCF7101834; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:00:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Propel-Return-Path: <dwm@xpasc.com>
Received: from email.xpasc.com ([10.1.2.88]) by [127.0.0.1] ([127.0.0.1]) (port 7027) (Abaca EPG outproxy filter 3.1.1.9347 $Rev: 9262 $) id iz6Ur92gf070; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:00:07 -0800
Received: from xpasc.com (egate.xpasc.com [10.1.2.49]) by bslepgate.xpasc.com (Postfix-out) with ESMTP id 73C7510058B; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:00:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from egate.xpasc.com (egate.xpasc.com [10.1.2.49]) by xpasc.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1GF05nK010335; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:00:05 -0800
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:00:05 -0800
From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
In-Reply-To: <499962EA.9020002@alvestrand.no>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0902160656030.4969@egate.xpasc.com>
References: <49952C21.3070607@ripe.net> <49959458.2040208@piuha.net> <499962EA.9020002@alvestrand.no>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Propel-ID: iz6Ur92gf070
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:59:59 -0000

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> Jari Arkko wrote:

>> Note that this opinion is entirely separate from the value of the comments. 
>> Repetition and mail bombing is not valuable. Well justified opinions are 
>> very valuable. The latter may come from both inside and outside the IETF; 
>> sometimes experts on some topic can be persuaded to send in a comment, but 
>> not to subscribe to lists or engage in lengthy debate. 
> I think anyone who posts to the IETF list should have his unsubscribe 
> function disabled for a week.
> That seems like a punishment that fits the crime.
>
> (despite the obvious workarounds)

But first, subscribing must be required, or automatic with the post 
confirmtion. I thought my 2 day penalty box was radical, but a week
would be fine with me.

Dave Morris