idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-poisson-listaup-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. == 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 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.) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 (September 25, 2000) is 8606 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) No issues found here. Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Internet Engineering Task Force S. Harris 2 INTERNET-DRAFT Merit Network 3 September 25, 2000 5 IETF Discussion List Charter 6 8 Status of this Memo 10 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 11 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 13 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 14 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 15 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 16 Drafts. 18 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 19 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 20 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 21 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 23 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 24 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 26 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 29 NOTE: This document represents a snapshot of the policies and 30 procedures it covers as of its date of publication. These policies 31 and procedures are subject to change and such change takes effect 32 upon their approval. All changes are to be managed according to the 33 process used for approving Working Group charters as specified by BCP 34 25. 36 Abstract 38 The IETF discussion mailing list furthers the development and 39 specification of Internet technology through discussion of technical 40 issues, and hosts discussions of IETF direction, policy, meetings, 41 and procedures. As this is the most general IETF mailing list, 42 considerable latitude is allowed. Advertising, whether to solicit 43 business or promote employment opportunities, falls well outside the 44 range of acceptable topics, as do discussions of a personal nature. 46 1. Charter for the IETF Discussion List 48 The IETF discussion list, ietf@ietf.org, serves two purposes. It 49 furthers the development and specification of Internet technology 50 through discussion of technical issues. It also hosts discussions of 51 IETF direction, policy, meetings, and procedures. As this is the most 52 general IETF mailing list, considerable latitude is allowed. 53 Advertising, whether to solicit business or promote employment 54 opportunities, falls well outside the range of acceptable topics, as 55 do discussions of a personal nature. 57 This list is meant for initial discussion only. Discussions that 58 fall within the area of any working group or well established list 59 should be moved to such more specific forum as soon as this is 60 pointed out, unless the issue is one for which the working group 61 needs wider input or direction. 63 In addition to the topics noted above, appropriate postings include: 65 - Last Call discussions of proposed protocol actions 66 - Discussion of technical issues that are candidates for IETF work, 67 but do not yet have an appropriate e-mail venue 68 - Discussion of IETF administrative policies 69 - Questions and clarifications concerning IETF meetings 70 - Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are 71 sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF. 73 Inappropriate postings include: 75 - Unsolicited bulk e-mail 76 - Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings, 77 activities, or technical concerns 78 - Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject 79 - Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are 80 not sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF. 82 The IETF Chair, the IETF Executive Director, or a sergeant-at-arms 83 appointed by the Chair is empowered to restrict posting by a person, 84 or of a thread, when the content is inappropriate and represents a 85 pattern of abuse. They are encouraged to take into account the 86 overall nature of the postings by an individual and whether 87 particular postings are an aberration or typical. Complaints 88 regarding their decisions should be referred to the IAB. 90 Acknowledgements 92 Comments by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd and other members of the IETF 93 POISSON working group are gratefully acknowledged. 95 Author's Address 97 Susan R. Harris 98 Merit Network, Inc. 99 4251 Plymouth Rd., Suite C 100 Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 101 Phone: (734) 936-2100 102 Fax: (734) 647-3185 103 Email: srh@merit.edu