IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: tone policing

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Mon, 09 September 2019 23:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13CC112010E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 16:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B025J4tWVHNz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 16:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 622BB12000F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 16:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 67596 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2019 18:59:34 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 9 Sep 2019 18:59:34 -0000
Subject: Re: tone policing
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <F2D6FBAB-7DED-41AE-9560-4D0D13B15107@ericsson.com> <1BF349D9-8ABB-4844-965A-A43964E18A41@fugue.com> <29c10b3d-8f48-8888-68c9-7390b1e4df5d@network-heretics.com> <ae8353f1-adf9-c615-a721-9fba85b40d5c@foobar.org> <059707fd-afea-e4b4-fa77-967e38206c52@network-heretics.com> <737e066d-4646-7021-3466-6a66f8f0a28e@lounge.org> <259BC9E3-EE7B-4152-8BDD-3900D2D75775@network-heretics.com> <B13131F3-BFB5-4C97-B5A4-E96C34CDAB7C@akamai.com> <4cc1dcb9-ae84-2cef-6439-247a5ccd41af@network-heretics.com> <D4348A6A-A500-488C-AC6F-DEEA7C6B9B2F@fugue.com>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <f1543cc4-7dcc-35f4-eea0-428be8ce5597@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 04:12:09 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D4348A6A-A500-488C-AC6F-DEEA7C6B9B2F@fugue.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/cvdXzURXUXmvqtCrG10Otw8QQlU>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 09 Sep 2019 23:56:12 -0000

Ted Lemon wrote:

>  At present, we do not have a feedback mechanism at all.

"restrict posting" in rfc3005 is the feedback mechanism we
have at present.

Because of the harsh nature of the mechanism, the system is
harmed by the mechanism, unless feedback gain is very small.

> not exactly “imposing constraints,” but rather, strong and careful curation

How can it be "strong"? By "imposing constraints"?

							Masataka Ohta

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email