Randy - understand that someone responding to 20 comments to them, if they were legitimately to them is totally reasonable. So is making one of two posts a day on each of the WG's active topics and probably also posting one new topic a day as well so lets total this up 1 new topic post 2 unsolicited posts on currently debated topics; and a response to each legitimate individual response (per topic) to those three new posts or any still in-process posts. So lets see - someone posts an idea which inflames half the membership of the list and... everyone responds - so say there are 30 active members of the list and 25 of them reply. By the above rule the posting party is entitled to respond to those 25 retorts to their post - this by the way is usually referred to as "vetting" in IETF WG Lingo so... its right on scope. So lets say 25 responses to the new post. By the way - multiply this by three to get the real numbers but we will leave it where it is for our totals. As to the previous posts - say there are 10 responses to the previous day's post and another 5 from the day before that adding an additional 15 posts to the number... So now lets add it up and see what the IETF has gotten themselves into this time: 3 daily new material posts 25 responses to the new posts (which only assumes that they responded to one of the three posts) 15 responses to the old posts -------- 43 posts Hell I can easily see 100 posts a day being totally reasonable per person. Remember this is about participation. Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 10:10 AM Subject: Re: administrative question on RFC publications > Hi - > > > From: "todd glassey" <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > To: "todd glassey" <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 9:12 AM > > Subject: Re: administrative question on RFC publications > ... > > Anyone else have commentary on this? > ... > > Proceeding as you suggest would provide yet another avenue for > DoS attacks on the process. No doubt some unscrupulous party > is already contemplating this kind of attack on an extraordinarily > innocuous BCP. > > Randy > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf