Re: Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.
Russ Housley <housley <at> vigilsec.com>
2010-01-31 21:45:17 GMT
Thanks. I think I understand your position clearly now.
On 1/31/2010 3:52 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Sunday, January 31, 2010 14:20 -0500 Russ Housley
> <housley <at> vigilsec.com> wrote:
>> I agree with your observation about "norms". You seem to
>> think that coming to consensus on words that describe them is
>> not going to be easy.
> Actually, I don't have an opinion about that. It would
> certainly be easy to say "no harvesting", for example.
>> I am unwilling to add words to the NOTE WELL without the
> I agree with that position. I also agree with you that
> complaining, or even making suggestions, in the absence of an
> I-D that proposes specific changes and that could be considered
> for adoption as a BCP is a waste of everyone's time.
> However, I was trying to reason another step ahead and consider
> what steps we might take if such an I-D were actually written.
> I was suggesting that, however easy it might be to formulate
> words, generating a BCP (or other clear evidence of consensus)
> inevitably takes considerable resources. Let me try to say that
> I believe that
> (1) It would not be useful to expend those resources
> unless we had a reasonable expectations that, e.g., a
> change to the Note Well would actually change behavior
> of anyone who is deliberately and consciously ignoring
> the unwritten norms today.
> (2) Those who have been harvesting names from the IETF
> lists are almost certainly aware of those norms and are
> deliberately violating them for what they consider more
> important purposes.
> (3) That implies that our trying to adjust the Note Well
> (presumably by formulating a new BCP) is not worth the
> effort --no matter how difficult or easy we believe
> finding the right words would be-- unless the Trust
> and/or ISOC were committed to litigation against those
> who were harvesting the IETF (or WG) list(s) and had
> already concluded, on advice of Counsel, that such
> litigation had good odds of success if the Note Well
> text were changed.
> To summarize, I do not believe that the IESG should either
> assign the task for creating such a BCP to this WG or another
> one, or consider a Last Call for an individual submission BCP,
> unless a conclusion has first been reached that such a BCP would
> be a good foundation for litigation and that the IETF (or
> someone on the IETF's behalf) would, in fact, litigate.
> Is that more clear?