+1
I think issues have been raised that should not be relevant and
that should be considered, if at all, as part of some other
question or issue. But most of the recent ones, including
Cullen's questions, seem very much in line with trying to
understand the question the IAOC decided to ask for as to give
an informed answer to it.
john
--On Monday, October 12, 2009 08:55 -0800 Melinda Shore
<shore@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 8:44 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> The questions constitute a denial of service attack on IETF
>> operations.
>
> I really don't think so. I don't even think there's
> a denial of service effect, regardless of intent. The
> community was asked for feedback about meeting in the
> PRC given what appears to be some pretty problematic
> text in the hotel contract. I don't think that questions
> about what that text actually might mean in practice are
> inappropriate or disruptive. To the contrary - I think
> it's quite clear from the discussion that there's not
> a common understanding of the contract terms, or, for that
> matter, even a common understanding of the questions
> that were asked in the first place.
>
> Personally, I don't know what I think although I'm
> leaning towards thinking it's a bad idea if a hotel
> employee can shut the meeting down if they don't
> like the content or what some random attendee says
> in the hallway. But - and this is a big but - I
> don't know if I'm understanding the contract correctly.
> And because of my own lack of clarity around the
> terms of the contract I'm grateful for Cullen's questions,
> which I think will help crystallize much of what's
> under discussion.
>
> Melinda
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf