Network Working Group M. Rose
Internet-Draft Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
Expires: May 26, 2004 November 26, 2003
A Practice for Revoking Posting Rights to IETF mailing lists
draft-mrose-ietf-posting-04
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 26, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
All self-governing bodies have ways of managing the scope of
participant interaction. The IETF uses a consensus-driven process for
developing computer-communications standards in an open fashion. An
important part of this consensus-driven process is the pervasive use
of mailing lists for discussion. Notably, in a small number of cases,
a participant has engaged in a "denial-of-service" attack to disrupt
the consensus-driven process. Regrettably, as these bad faith attacks
become more common, the IETF needs to establish a practice that
reduces or eliminates these attacks. This memo recommends such a
practice for use by the IETF.
Rose Expires May 26, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists November 2003
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. A Revocation Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A. Q & A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 12
Rose Expires May 26, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists November 2003
1. Introduction
All self-governing bodies have ways of managing the scope of
participant interaction. For example, deliberative assemblies often
employ "rules of order" for determining who gets to speak, when, and
for how long. Similarly, there is widespread agreement in so-called
"liberal" societies that the right to free speech is not absolute,
e.g., political speech is given more leeway than commercial speech,
and some forms of speech (e.g., egregious libel or incitement to
violence) are considered unacceptable.
The IETF uses a consensus-driven process for developing
computer-communications standards in an open fashion. An important
part of this consensus-driven process is the pervasive use of mailing
lists for discussion. Unlike many other organizations, anyone may
post messages on those IETF mailing lists, and in doing so,
participate in the IETF process. Historically, this approach has
worked very well in the IETF, as it fosters participation from a wide
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.)
Notably, in a small number of cases, a participant has engaged in
what ammounts to a "denial-of-service" attack to disrupt the
consensus-driven process. Typically, these attacks are made by
repeatedly posting messages that are off-topic, inflammatory, or
otherwise counter-productive. In contrast, good faith disagreement is
a healthy part of the consensus-driven process.
For example, if a working group is unable to reach consensus, this is
an acceptable, albeit unfortunate, outcome; however, if that working
group fails to achieve consensus because it is being continuously
disrupted, then the disruption constitutes an abuse of the
consensus-driven process. Interactions of this type are fundamentally
different from "the lone voice of dissent" in which a participant
expresses a view that is discussed but does not achieve consensus. In
other words, individual bad faith should not trump community
goodwill.
Rose Expires May 26, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists November 2003
Guidelines have been developed for dealing with abusive behavior
(c.f., Section 3.2 of [1] and [2]). Although not exhaustive, examples
of abusive or othewise inappropriate postings to IETF mailing lists
include:
o unsolicited bulk e-mail;
o discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings,
activities, or technical concerns;
o unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject; and,
o announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not
sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF.
In practice, the application of those guidelines has included the
temporary suspension of posting rights to a specific mailing list. If
necessary, the length of the suspension has been increased with each
successive suspension. In many cases, applying those guidelines will
produce the desired modification in behaviour. However, when those
guidelines fail to provide the desired modification in behaviour,
more drastic measures should be available to reduce or eliminate
these attacks' impact on the IETF process.
This document describes one such drastic measure.
Rose Expires May 26, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists November 2003
2. A Revocation Practice
Please refer to [3] for the meaning conveyed by the uppercase words
in this section.
As a part of its activities, the Internet Engineering Steering Group
(IESG) makes decisions about "actions". Typically, an action refers
to the publication of a document on the standards-track, the
chartering of a working group, and so on. This memo recommends that
the IESG also undertake a new type of action, termed a PR-action
("posting rights" action).
A PR-action identifies one or more individuals, citing messages
posted by those individuals to an IETF mailing list, that appear to
be abusive of the consensus-driven process. If approved by the IESG,
then:
o those identified on the PR-action have their posting rights to
that IETF mailing list removed; and,
o maintainers of any IETF mailing list may, at their discretion,
also remove posting rights to that IETF mailing list.
Once taken, this action remains in force until explicitly nullified
and SHOULD remain in force for at least one year.
One year after the PR-action is approved, a new PR-action MAY be
introduced which restores the posting rights for that individual. The
IESG SHOULD consider the frequency of nullifying requests when
evaluating a new PR-action. If the posting rights are restored the
individual is responsible for contacting the owners of the mailing
lists to have them restored.
Regardless of whether the PR-action revokes or restores posting
rights, the IESG follows the same algorithm as with its other
actions:
1. it is introduced by an IESG Area Director (AD), who, prior to
doing so, may choose to inform the interested parties;
2. is is published as an IESG last call on the IETF general
discussion list;
3. it is discussed by the community;
4. it is discussed by the IESG; and, finally,
5. using the usual consensus-based process, it is decided upon by
Rose Expires May 26, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists November 2003
the IESG.
Of course, as with all IESG actions, the appeals process outlined in
[4] may be invoked to contest a PR-action approved by the IESG.
Working groups SHOULD ensure that their associated mailing list is
manageable. For example, some may try to circumvent the revocation of
their posting rights by changing email addresses; accordingly it
should be possible to restrict the new email address.
Finally, note that the scope of a PR-action deals solely with posting
rights. Consistent with the final paragraph of Section 3.2 of [1], no
action may be taken to prevent individuals from receiving messages
sent to a mailing list.
Rose Expires May 26, 2004 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists November 2003
3. Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of: Brian
Carpenter, Jim Galvin, Jeff Haas, Ted Hardie, Russ Housley, Thomas
Narten, Jon Peterson, Margaret Wasserman, and Bert Wijnen.
Rose Expires May 26, 2004 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists November 2003
4. Security Considerations
This memo deals with matters of process, not protocol.
A reasonable person might note that this memo describes a mechanism
to throttle active denial-of-service attacks againast the
consensus-drive process used by the IETF.
Rose Expires May 26, 2004 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists November 2003
Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", BCP
25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
[2] Harris, S., "IETF Discussion List Charter", BCP 45, RFC 3005,
November 2000.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[4] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
Author's Address
Marshall T. Rose
Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
POB 255268
Sacramento, CA 95865-5268
US
Phone: +1 916 483 8878
EMail: mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us
Rose Expires May 26, 2004 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists November 2003
Appendix A. Q & A
Q: Isn't a year too long?
A: No.
An initial PR-action is not undertaken lightly. It is approved
only after a period of substantive consideration and community
review. If a PR-action is approved, then this indicates that a
serious situation has arisen.
Q: Why not require one PR-action per IETF mailing list?
A: To do so would enable a prolonged series of denial-of-service
attacks.
If someone is poorly-behaved on one IETF mailing list, but
well-behaved on another, then the maintainer for the second IETF
mailing list needn't revoke posting rights. However, the more
likely scenario is that someone who behaves poorly on one IETF
mailing list is unwilling to be well-behaved on any IETF mailing
list.
Q: Should the initiation of a PR-action come from outside the IESG?
A: Informally, sure; formally, no.
Under the IETF's consensus-driven process, IESG actions are always
formally initiated by an IESG Area Director (AD). In practice, the
motivation for an IESG member to initiate an action almost always
comes from outside the IESG. For example, when a working group
(WG) reaches consensus on a document, the WG chair informs the
relevant AD that the document is ready for the AD to consider it
for a document action. In the case of this document -- an IETF
individual submission -- the author will iteratively circulate the
document for wide discussion and make revisions. At some point,
the author will contact an AD and ask for a document action to
publish this document as a Best Current Practice (BCP).
Q: Is this censorship?
A: Only if you believe in anarchy.
What is important is that the rules surrounding PR-actions exhibit
the same properties used by the rest of the consensus-based
process.
Rose Expires May 26, 2004 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists November 2003
Q: C'mon! You really are a closet fascist.
A: No, I'm a libertarian.
Frankly, I would prefer that people behave reasonably and act in
good faith. Since my first involvement with the IETF (nee GADS,
circa 1983), everyone understood that reasonable behavior was a
good thing. After 20 years, I regret to inform you that this step
is inevitable.
Rose Expires May 26, 2004 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists November 2003
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
Rose Expires May 26, 2004 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists November 2003
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Rose Expires May 26, 2004 [Page 13]
