idnits 2.17.1 draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 14. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 301. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 278. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 285. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 291. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 76 has weird spacing: '...rovides a pro...' == Line 90 has weird spacing: '...changes have...' == Line 105 has weird spacing: '...spended from ...' == Line 106 has weird spacing: '...permits a lo...' == Line 115 has weird spacing: '... create sanct...' == (3 more instances...) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (May 16, 2006) is 6554 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3005 (Obsoleted by RFC 9245) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 8 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group S. Hartman 3 Internet-Draft MIT 4 Expires: November 17, 2006 May 16, 2006 6 Experimental Procedure for Long Term Suspensions from Mailing Lists 7 draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-03.txt 9 Status of this Memo 11 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 12 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 13 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 14 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 16 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 17 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 18 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 19 Drafts. 21 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 22 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 23 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 24 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 26 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 29 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 17, 2006. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 38 Abstract 40 Discussion in the community has begun to question whether RFC 3683 41 and RFC 3934 provide the appropriate flexibility for managing IETF 42 mailing lists. This document is an RFC 3933 experiment designed to 43 allow the community to experiment with a broader set of tools for 44 mailing list management while trying to determine what the long-term 45 guidelines should be. 47 1. Introduction 49 As discussed in RFC 3683, the IETF needs to have rules of conduct to 50 limit disruptive or abusive behavior while permitting fair and open 51 forum for the discussion of Internet standardization. The IETF has a 52 long and complicated history of rules for managing conduct on its 53 mailing lists. 55 RFC 2418 [RFC2418] permitted individuals to be blocked from posting 56 to a mailing list: "As a last resort and after explicit warnings, the 57 Area Director, with the approval of the IESG, may request that the 58 mailing list maintainer block the ability of the offending individual 59 to post to the mailing list." RFC 2418 also allowed other forms of 60 mailing list control to be applied with the approval of the area 61 director and IESG. However RFC 2418 only applies to working group 62 mailing lists. 64 The IETF discussion list charter [RFC3005] provides guidelines for 65 ietf@ietf.org. These guidelines provide more flexibility than RFC 66 2418. " The IETF Chair, the IETF Executive Director, or a sergeant- 67 at-arms appointed by the Chair is empowered to restrict posting by a 68 person, or of a thread, when the content is inappropriate and 69 represents a pattern of abuse. They are encouraged to take into 70 account the overall nature of the postings by an individual and 71 whether particular postings are an aberration or typical. Complaints 72 regarding their decisions should be referred to the IAB. " In 73 particular it appears that these decisions do not follow the normal 74 appeals path outlined in RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. 76 RFC 3683[RFC3683] provides a procedure for banning named individuals 77 from posting to an IETF mailing list for at least one year. However 78 once such a ban is put in place for one mailing list, the individuals 79 responsible for other IETF mailing lists can unilaterally remove the 80 posting rights of that individual. 82 RFC 3934 [RFC3934] amends RFC 2418 and grants the working group chair 83 the ability to suspend a member's posting rights for 30 days. 84 However it appears to remove the ability of the AD and IESG to 85 approve longer suspensions or alternative procedures: "Other methods 86 of mailing list control, including longer suspensions, must be 87 carried out in accordance with other IETF-approved procedures." An 88 argument could be made that the amendment was not intended to remove 89 the already-approved procedures in RFC 2418 although a perhaps 90 stronger argument can be made that the actual textual changes have 91 the effect of removing these procedures. 93 The IESG has issued a statement on mailing list management [IESGLIST] 94 that allows working group mailing lists to be moderated. Under this 95 procedure, specific off-topic postings could be discarded. However 96 this procedure does not allow the posting rights of an individual to 97 be suspended; it simply allows the list as a whole to be moderated. 99 The IESG issued a statement on disruptive postings [IESGDISRUPT] . 100 This statement applies procedures similar to RFC 3934 and to the 101 statement on moderated lists to non-working-group lists. 103 The result of these guidelines is that there is a large gap between 104 the levels of sanction that can be applied. An individual can be 105 suspended from a working group list easily for 30 days. However the 106 only option available to the IESG that permits a longer suspension 107 for any list besides ietf@ietf.org is the ability to suspend an 108 individual for an indefinite time period from one list. This 109 suspension can expand to any IETF list without community or IESG 110 involvement. This memo is an RFC 3933[RFC3933] experiment to provide 111 the IESG with the ability to create additional mechanisms to manage 112 IETF mailing lists while the community decides what mailing list 113 guidelines are appropriate. IN particular this experiment allows the 114 IESG to create a level of sanction between RFC 3934 and RFC 3683 for 115 working group lists and create sanctions other than RFC 3683 for 116 non-working-group lists. The goal of this experiment is to improve 117 the functioning of IETF mailing lists while keeping the process open 118 and fair. This experiment is successful if it gives the community 119 useful input on how to design mailing list management process. It is 120 not expected that this experiment will be adopted in its current form 121 as a permanent BCP. 123 2. Requirements notation 125 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 126 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 127 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 129 3. Definition of IETF Mailing List 131 This experiment applies to all IETF mailing lists, including those 132 not associated with a working group. The definition of a working 133 group list is clear, but the definition of an IETF mailing list 134 comprehensive enough to include all IETF mailing lists is not 135 obvious. For the purpose of this experiment, an IETF mailing list is 136 defined as follows. 138 An "IETF mailing list" is defined as the IETF list itself, any 139 mailing list operated to further the work of a current IETF Working 140 Group (WG), any mailing list created for WG use but retained for 141 ongoing discussion after that WG was shut down, any mailing list 142 created in support of an IETF-specified procedure (including mailing 143 lists whose purpose is the discussion of registration actions), and 144 any mailing list hosted on any site or system operated by the IASA or 145 otherwise on behalf of the IETF. Mailing lists listed at 146 https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi are explicitly 147 included in this definition. 149 4. The Experiment 151 This experiment runs for a period of 18 months. During the 152 experiment period, the IESG MAY approve other methods of mailing list 153 control besides those outlined in RFC 3683 and RFC 3934 to be used on 154 a specified set of IETF mailing lists. Such methods include but are 155 not limited to suspending the posting rights of an individual beyond 156 30 days on those lists. Under such procedures the IESG may delegate 157 the authority to perform longer-term suspensions of specific 158 individuals on specific mailing lists. 160 The procedures of this memo MUST NOT be used to suspend the posting 161 rights of an individual beyond the period of the experiment. The 162 procedures of this memo MUST NOT be used to limit an individual's 163 ability to read the contents of a mailing list. 165 The IESG MUST inform the community in a public statement of any 166 procedures for mailing list management approved under this 167 experiment. Such a statement should include the description of the 168 procedure and the description of mailing lists to which it applies or 169 an indication that it applies to all IETF mailing lists. The IESG 170 MUST make a public announcement of a new procedure at least 14 days 171 prior to the procedure taking effect. While the community is 172 encouraged to comment on any IESG action, community consensus is not 173 required to approve such a procedure. All currently active 174 procedures under this experiment MUST be made public in an 175 appropriate, easy-to-find location. 177 Sanctions made under this memo may be appealed using the procedures 178 outlined in [RFC2026]. 180 5. How the Experiment may be Used (Informative) 182 The IESG could approve a procedure allowing it to suspend an 183 individual from one or more mailing lists for a fixed period of time 184 greater than 30 days. 186 Also, the IESG could delegate this power. Two types of delegation 187 are envisioned. In the first, the IESG has a procedure that allows 188 it to suspend a named individual from a list and to grant the 189 managers of that list the delegated authority to continue to apply 190 longer suspensions if disruptive behavior continues. In the second, 191 the IESG approves a procedure that specifies a set of lists and 192 allows managers of those lists to unilaterally take action after an 193 initial suspension in a manner similar to RFC 3683. 195 6. Security Considerations 197 This document describes a modification to the IETF process for 198 managing mailing list discussions. It has no security 199 considerations. 201 7. Acknowledgments 203 I would like to thank Brian Carpenter and John Klensin for valuable 204 input in drafting this experiment. 206 8. References 208 8.1 Normative References 210 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 211 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 213 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 214 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 216 [RFC3933] Klensin, J. and S. Dawkins, "A Model for IETF Process 217 Experiments", BCP 93, RFC 3933, November 2004. 219 8.2 Informative References 221 [IESGDISRUPT] 222 "IESG Statement on Disruptive Posting", February 2006. 224 [IESGLIST] 225 "IESG guidance on the moderation of IETF Working Group 226 Mailing Lists", URL http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/ 227 moderated-lists.txt, August 2000. 229 [RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and 230 Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998. 232 [RFC3005] Harris, S., "IETF Discussion List Charter", BCP 45, 233 RFC 3005, November 2000. 235 [RFC3683] Rose, M., "A Practice for Revoking Posting Rights to IETF 236 mailing lists", BCP 83, RFC 3683, February 2004. 238 [RFC3934] Wasserman, M., "Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the 239 Management of IETF Mailing Lists", BCP 94, RFC 3934, 240 October 2004. 242 Author's Address 244 Sam Hartman 245 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 247 Email: hartmans-ietf@mit.edu 249 Appendix A. Change Log 251 Note to RFC Editor: This section should be removed prior to 252 publication. 254 A.1 Changes since 00 256 Add definition of IETF mailing list 258 Remove claim that RFC 3934 can be applied to non-WG mailing lists 259 as this may conflict with an IAB appeal response. 261 Clarify what I meant by delegation in section 3 Clarify that the 262 IESG must approve procedures and that procedures must be public. 264 Remove the idea that actions against specific people should be 265 last called. Nothing forbids this but our experience with RFC 266 3683 suggests that we should carefully consider whether this is a 267 useful exercise. 269 Intellectual Property Statement 271 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 272 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 273 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 274 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 275 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 276 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 277 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 278 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 280 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 281 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 282 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 283 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 284 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 285 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 287 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 288 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 289 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 290 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 291 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 293 Disclaimer of Validity 295 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 296 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 297 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 298 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 299 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 300 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 301 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 303 Copyright Statement 305 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject 306 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 307 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 309 Acknowledgment 311 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 312 Internet Society.