idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc3005bis-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** 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.) -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC3005, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 11, 2018) is 2023 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Missing reference section? '1' on line 102 looks like a reference Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group S. Harris, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Merit Network, Inc. 4 Obsoletes: 3005 (if approved) R. Salz, Ed. 5 Intended status: Best Current Practice Akamai Technologies, Inc. 6 Expires: April 14, 2019 October 11, 2018 8 IETF Discussion List Charter 9 draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc3005bis-00 11 Abstract 13 The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) discussion mailing list 14 furthers the development and specification of Internet technology 15 through discussion of technical issues, and hosts discussions of IETF 16 direction, policy, meetings, and procedures. As this is the most 17 general IETF mailing list, considerable latitude is allowed. 18 Advertising, whether to solicit business or promote employment 19 opportunities, falls well outside the range of acceptable topics, as 20 do discussions of a personal nature. 22 Status of This Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 14, 2019. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 1. Charter for the IETF Discussion List 56 The IETF discussion list, ietf@ietf.org [1], serves two purposes. It 57 furthers the development and specification of Internet technology 58 through discussion of technical issues. It also hosts discussions of 59 IETF direction, policy, meetings, and procedures. As this is the 60 most general IETF mailing list, considerable latitude is allowed. 61 Advertising, whether to solicit business or promote employment 62 opportunities, falls well outside the range of acceptable topics, as 63 do discussions of a personal nature. 65 This list is meant for initial discussion only. Discussions that 66 fall within the area of any working group or well established list 67 should be moved to such more specific forum as soon as this is 68 pointed out, unless the issue is one for which the working group 69 needs wider input or direction. 71 In addition to the topoics noted above, appropriate postings include: 73 o Last Call discussions of proposed protocol actions. 74 o Discussion of technical issues that are candidates for IETF work, 75 but do not yet have an appropriate e-mail venue. 76 o Discussion of IETF administrative policies. 77 o Questions and clarifications concerning IETF meetings. 78 o Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are 79 sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF. 81 Inappropriate postings include: 83 o Unsolicited bulk e-mail. 84 o Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings, 85 activities, or technical concerns. 86 o Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject. 87 o Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not 88 sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF. 90 The IETF Chair, or a sergeant-at-arms appointed by the Chair, is 91 empowered to restrict posting by a person, or of a thread, when the 92 content is inappropriate and represents a pattern of abuse. They are 93 encouraged to take into account the overall nature of the postings by 94 an individual and whether particular postings are an aberration or 95 typical. Complaints regarding their decisions should be referred to 96 the IAB. 98 2. References 100 2.1. URIs 102 [1] mailto:ietf@ietf.org 104 Authors' Addresses 106 Susan R. Harris (editor) 107 Merit Network, Inc. 108 4251 Plymouth Rd., Suite C 109 Ann Arbor, MI 48105 110 USA 112 Email: srh@merit.edu 114 Rich Salz (editor) 115 Akamai Technologies, Inc. 116 150 Broadway 117 Cambridge, MA 02142 118 USA 120 Email: rsalz@akamai.com