On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 02:11:28PM -0500, avri@xxxxxxx allegedly wrote: > To start, I must admit I have trouble equating an individual or > community's disagreement with a decision to a DOS attack, though I do > know how disconcerting and distracting an insistent complaint can be. > I just don't see equating people's concerns with maliciously motivated > attacks, no matter how persistent or obnoxious. > > I also have no problem believing that the better option in any such > disagreement would be to respond early and with due diligence with a > public response (accountable and transparent) as opposed to just > deleting it because it appears frivolous. I think we need to be very > careful in defining an objection as frivolous before having given it > due diligence. The problem in both paragraphs is that there is no "frivolous" bit to check -- it's a subjective judgment, depending on the situation. We could reach an objective definition, but it would be hard to do so, the definition would be invalidated as conditions change, and we actually don't need to take the time. We can leave it up to those receiving the requests to judge frivolity, but also have ways to rein them in if necessary. If someone feels they are being unfairly judged frivolous, they can bring in support. If *they* think the person is being frivolous, then he/she probably is. If he/she still disagrees, we have the appeal process to bring in even more opinions. We don't need to build everything into rules if the process has the right characteristics. > But once having reviewed an issue and publishing a response, then > there would be no reason to re-review, thus avoiding an effect similar > to that from a DOS attack. I'm not very good at being devious, but even I can think of small things one could do that would force a re-review under any terms along those lines. > I also think that history has shown us that appeals are relatively > rare and generally not frivolous. It is for this reason that I > advocate extending the current model of appeal, with the caveats about > not voiding contracts etc, to the IAD and IAOC. I think creating the > procedure to avoid so called 'DOS attacks' is, in effect, fighting a > problem we do not have. But it costs no more to make sure we don't have it, using the process currently on the table. I am not concerned that the IESG (or IAB) would unreasonably protect the IAOC, but if they do, we have a process for that as well. swb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf