Subject: Free? Software Foundation

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:55:06 -0400 (EDT)

it is interesting that the "free" software foundation is espousing
censorship 

Scott

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:16:45 +0100

On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 09:55:06AM -0400,
 Scott O. Bradner <[email-masked]> wrote 

> it is interesting that the "free" software foundation is espousing

It is absolutely ridiculous to call "censorship" a call to NOT publish
in *our* RFC series a document. "Censorship" would be if IETF
exerciced powers (which it does not have) to prevent ANY publication
of this document anywhere. 

If I do not publish your rants on my blog, for instance, it it not
censorship, you can always publish it elsewehere.

Your misusage of words could be excused only if english were not your
native language. Such an outrageous claim is common on /. or similar
sites but I did not expect it on an IETF mailing list (except by JFC
or similar trolls).

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:20:23 -0400 (EDT)

I seem to have hit a nerve 

you are asking the IETF to not publish an IETF doucment - what else
can you call it?

Scott

---

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:48:19 +0100

On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 10:20:23AM -0400,
 Scott O. Bradner <[email-masked]> wrote 

> you are asking the IETF to not publish an IETF doucment - what else

So, each time in a Last Call, someone says "This document should not
be published", it is censorship? That's quite insulting for the
victims of real censorship.

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:59:53 -0400 (EDT)

> victims of real censorship.

I do not recall another case where the IETF got requests to not publish
documents in last call - most of the time there are constructive
comments pointing out technical issues that might get fixed before
publication.

I have seen requests to not publish or delay publishing RFCs that had
been submitted to a working group but were not chosen - those requesters
were worried about the potential for confusion with the working group
output - if memory serves, the RFC was published in almost all of tehse
cases - but after a delay so the working group version could get
published first in some cases.

Scott