A Practice for Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists
RFC 3683

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Steven Bellovin) Yes

(Ned Freed) Yes

(Thomas Narten) (was Discuss) Yes

Comment (2003-12-03)
No email
send info
Nits (these are in -04)

>    range of stakeholders. {+(For the purposes of this memo, the term "IETF
>    mailing list" refers to any mailing list functioning under IETF
>    auspices, such as the IETF general discussion list,, or a working
>    group or design team mailing list.)+}

s/,,/,/

>    to throttle active denial-of-service attacks againast the

s/againast/against/

(Jon Peterson) Yes

Comment (2003-09-18 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
A small point - in Section 2, would it make sense to define 'any IETF mailing list' (5th paragraph, second unnumbered bullet)? A reader might interpret that very strictly (to mean just lists at ietf.org, say). Obviously it includes WG mailing lists. Does it include IETF-related lists (like e2e)? Mailing lists set up for BoFs that might not become WGs, or design teams? My guess is that this overlaps with the mailing lists covered by the IPR notice:

"any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices"

'auspices' is pretty vague - though it may be good vagueness.

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

Comment (2003-09-18 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I agree with Ted's comment that the Q&A section should be removed.

I don't understand Russ' comments about removing the word "vote".
Since I am currently filling out a "ballot", it is pretty clear
to me that the IESG "votes".  Is there something wrong with that?

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

Comment (2003-09-18 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Just a note, there's a spare > at the end of the writeup which should be removed before announcing

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

Comment (2003-09-17 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I personally think the FAQ style questions and answers should be dropped as it moves to RFC,
but will go with whatever others think on that point.

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

(Alex Zinin) No Objection

(Harald Alvestrand) Recuse

Comment (2003-09-13 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I'm recusing myself on this one.
I asked Marshall to write this originally, and shepherded it through the discussions on POISED and the IETF mailing lists.
So I feel I've spoken enough in favour of it, and others should evaluate.