IETF Guidelines for Conduct
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko) Yes
(Richard Barnes) Yes
Spencer Dawkins Yes
(Adrian Farrel) (was No Record, Yes) Yes
Comment (2014-01-03 for -05)
Thanks for taking this on. Still balloting "Yes" on the latest revision. Just a few Comments... --- As Sean says, I guess 3184 can be moved to Historic at the same time. If this is to be done, it has to be called out somewhere. (I am now feeling that I don't care!) --- Nits... --- Section 1 OLD The work of the IETF relies on cooperation among a diverse range of people, ideas, and communication styles. NEW The work of the IETF relies on cooperation among a diverse range of people with different ideas and communication styles. END OLD The IETF strives, through the guidelines for conduct NEW The IETF strives, through these guidelines for conduct END --- Section 2 point 3 OLD We understand that "scaling is the ultimate problem" and that many ideas quite workable in the small fail this crucial test. NEW We understand that "scaling is the ultimate problem" and that many ideas that are quite workable on a small scale fail this crucial test. END --- ...and an aside... Section 3 has Guidelines about IETF conduct do not directly affect the security of the Internet. ...which (given recent claims and revelations) seems to conflict with Section 2 point 3... no one shall ever knowingly contribute advice or text that would make a standard technically inferior. I don't want to make a big thing of this, but perhaps change Section 3 to read... Guidelines about IETF conduct do not directly affect the security of the Internet, however it must be noted that there is an expectation that no one shall ever knowingly contribute advice or text that would make a standard less secure.
(Barry Leiba) Yes
(Pete Resnick) Yes
(Martin Stiemerling) Yes
(Sean Turner) Yes
Comment (2013-12-12 for -04)
Worth an informative reference in s1 after "consensus" to draft-resnick-on-consensus? Is it replaces or moves 3184 to historic?
(Stewart Bryant) (was No Record, Yes) No Objection
Comment (2014-01-08 for -06)
Purely a style thing, but the text is written more in the style of saying we conform to an ideal behaviour rather than the imperative that we should aim to attain a particular style of behaviour. Specifically it may be more effective to put the SHOULDs in the four points in section 2 to reinforce the requirement than in the preamble to the list. "We follow the intellectual property guidelines outlined in BCP 79 [RFC3979]." Recent events suggest to me that we should set a strong expectation that IETF contributors will emphasis the need of their sponsors/employers to follow these guidelines. "However it is to be noted that there is an expectation that no one shall ever knowingly contribute advice or text that may affect the security of the Internet..." Firstly, surely that should perhaps be "adversely affect...", but more importantly surely it is not just security, we expect that no one shall knowingly contribute advice or text that may harm the internet in any way.
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Benoit Claise) No Objection
Comment (2013-12-11 for -04)
I compared, with the rfcdiff tool, RFC 3184 and this draft, and I have to admit that I failed to see why we needed to update RFC 3184. Don't get me wrong, there are some nice text improvements and one paragraph was corrected (IPR), as mentioned in Appendix C. The only significant changes in the diff is the addition of the the appendix A and B. The content is useful, but these are only in the appendix, so not normative, right? Anyway, no objection. I was surprised to see that http://www.ietf.org/tao.html doesn't refer to RFC 3184. When this RFC will be published, the TAO should have a reference to it.
(Stephen Farrell) No Objection
Comment (2013-12-16 for -04)
When I read this I kept mentally prepending "ideally," to phrases. (Same as 3184.) I wish life were that simple:-)
(Brian Haberman) No Objection
Comment (2013-12-17 for -04)
Consider the following a thought experiment... Is the Security Considerations correct given that failure to follow bullet #3 could lead to serious security issues?