Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management of IETF Mailing Lists
RFC 3934

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

(Harald Alvestrand) Yes

Comment (2004-07-21)
No email
send info
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.

(Steven Bellovin) (was No Objection, Discuss) Yes

(Bill Fenner) Yes

(Scott Hollenbeck) Yes

(Russ Housley) Yes

Comment (2004-07-21)
No email
send info
  
  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.

(Thomas Narten) Yes

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

Comment (2004-07-20)
No email
send info
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.

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) No Objection

Comment (2004-07-21)
No email
send info
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).

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

(Margaret Cullen) Recuse