Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management of IETF Mailing Lists
draft-wasserman-rfc2418-ml-update-01
Yes
(Bill Fenner)
(Scott Hollenbeck)
(Steven Bellovin)
(Thomas Narten)
No Objection
(Bert Wijnen)
(David Kessens)
(Jon Peterson)
Recuse
(Margaret Cullen)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Harald Alvestrand Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2004-07-21)
Unknown
Reviewed by John Loughney, Gen-ART He points out that the document does not say whether multiple WG chairs have to agree in order for an action to be taken.
Russ Housley Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2004-07-21)
Unknown
The Security Considerations says: > > This document describes a modification to the IETF process for > managing mailing list discussions. It has no security > considerations. > Really, the point of this it to prevent individuals from mounting a denial of service attack on a working group. You might want to say so.
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Steven Bellovin Former IESG member
(was No Objection, Discuss)
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Thomas Narten Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-07-21)
Unknown
Supporting the points from Steve and Ted, the RFC on mailing list suspension by Marshall is a BCP and needs prominence. Harald: perhaps a nit, but a normative ref, rather than informative, in my opinion. (Because a chair who uses this RFC 2418 update process really should read BCP 83 and make sure they know about the other process for contrast).
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-07-20)
Unknown
I agree with Steve, and would have entered the same DISCUSS. But I'll go one better and
suggest text. Here's the current:
However, further
disruptive behavior by the same individual will be considered
separately and may result in further warnings or suspensions. Other
methods of mailing list control, including longer suspensions, must
be approved by the IESG or carried out in accordance with other
IESG-approved procedures.
I suggest adding the following added sentence: See BCP83 (RFC 3683)
for on set of procedures already defined and accepted by the community.
I also think the sentence above should be changed a bit, to reflect the
idea that it is IETF approved procedures that result in suspensions, rather
than IESG approved suspensions. New suggestion
Other methods of mailing list control, including longer suspensions, must
be approved by the IESG and carried out in accordance with other
IETF-approved procedures. See BCP83 (RFC 3683 for one set of procedures
already defined and accepted by the community.
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse
()
Unknown