Subject: RE:

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 14:21:33 -0600 (MDT)

> From: Joel Halpern <[email-masked]>

> How would you handle new topics.  We do get I-Ds for new ideas, and
> mailing lists established, and discussion going.  Often this is a
> pre-amble to going to the AD and saying "we have a good idea, can we
> have a BoF".  Do you really feel that ADs should have the right and
> necessity of approving such things before they even have the chance to
> demonstrate interest?

Why would an AD willing to sponsor a BOF not also be willing to sponsor
the I-D that leads to or comes out of the BOF?

I listed more than just WG's on purpose, with the idea that an AD, IAB
member, or IESG could independently sponsor an I-D.

> ...
> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
> charset=3Dus-ascii">
> <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
> ...

(It might be nice to try to get the MicroSoft software under control so
that it does not emit both a cleartext and an HTTP encyphered version of
your comments, along with the two complete copies of John Stracke's and
my words.)

] From: Dan Zigmond <[email-masked]>

] At the risk of making an obvious point, some of the people expressing their
] support of this submission don't subscribe to the IETF discussion list.
] They are just trying to do what they think the IESG asked them to do, which
] is to publicly state their "affirmative support".  They may not know what
] technical objections have been made on the list.  All they are stating is
] that it is their feeling that the specification would be a useful
] Informational RFC.  Again, the IESG specifically asked for demonstrations of
] "public support" and that's what they are getting.
]
] Perhaps your main point is that copying [email-masked] is a waste of time
] with such messages, and perhaps you are right.  On the other hand, the IESG
] did say to send comments to either this list of [email-masked], without
] giving any guidance of how someone might choose between the two.  So, again,
] one can hardly blame the people sending these messages for trying their best
] to follow IESG instructions.

As I said before people who do not care to or who are unable to scout the
political territory before wading in with Official Company Policies In
Support Of are unlikely to have anything technically interesting to say.
It's mere common sense to check out what "send messages of support" means
in context.  The needed supporting messages might involve letters from
corporate counsel.  Or maybe the comments must come from previously
recognized Accredited Representatives or Alternates, as required in ANSI.

As for people who think it is politic to send Official Comments In Support,
but cannot be bothered to listen to the responses...What can I say that
that could be printed in a family oriented mailinglist?  Well, it was the
first expression of that notion that spurred me to urge today that we
officially ask the IAB, IESG, and WG chairs to shield us from such bald
faced exercises of corporate marketing muscle, and to give them the
necessary official support to resist.  My guess is that the supporters of
this I-D will now cry "Foul!" more explicitly, say more clearly that the
IESG had no business resisting their initial request, and demand that
their I-D be published unchanged as an Official Informational RFC Binding
On All Of the World.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]