Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                       M. WassermanRequest for Comments: 3934                                    ThingMagicUpdates:2418                                               October 2004BCP: 94Category: Best Current PracticeUpdates toRFC 2418 Regarding the Management of IETF Mailing ListsStatus of this Memo   This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the   Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for   improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).Abstract   This document is an update toRFC 2418 that gives WG chairs explicit   responsibility for managing WG mailing lists.  In particular, it   gives WG chairs the authority to temporarily suspend the mailing list   posting privileges of disruptive individuals.Table of Contents1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22.  Specific Changes toRFC 2418 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36.  Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47.  Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Wasserman                Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]

RFC 3934             Mailing List Management Update         October 20041.  Introduction   As written,RFC 2418 [RFC2418] gives WG chairs more authority to   manage face-to-face discussions than to manage mailing list   discussions.  In face-to-face meetings, the WG chair has the   authority "to refuse to grant the floor to any individual who is   unprepared or otherwise covering inappropriate material, or who, in   the opinion of the Chair, is disrupting the WG process."  However,RFC 2418 does not give the WG Chair the authority to suspend the   mailing list posting privileges of an individual who is similarly   disrupting WG mailing list discussions.RFC 2418 explicitly requires   full IESG approval for this action.   This document is an update toRFC 2418, section 3.2.  It gives WG   chairs the authority to temporarily suspend the posting privileges of   disruptive individuals without IESG approval.2.  Specific Changes toRFC 2418   The following paragraphs supersede the last paragraph ofRFC 2418,   section 3.2:   As in face-to-face sessions, occasionally one or more individuals may   engage in behavior on a mailing list that, in the opinion of the WG   chair, is disruptive to the WG process.  Unless the disruptive   behavior is severe enough that it must be stopped immediately, the WG   chair should attempt to discourage the disruptive behavior by   communicating directly with the offending individual.  If the   behavior persists, the WG chair should send at least one public   warning on the WG mailing list.  As a last resort and typically after   one or more explicit warnings and consultation with the responsible   Area Director, the WG chair may suspend the mailing list posting   privileges of the disruptive individual for a period of not more than   30 days.  Even while posting privileges are suspended, the individual   must not be prevented from receiving messages posted to the list.   Like all other WG chair decisions, any suspension of posting   privileges is subject to appeal, as described inRFC 2026 [RFC2026].   This mechanism is intended to permit a WG chair to suspend posting   privileges of a disruptive individual for a short period of time.   This mechanism does not permit WG chairs to suspend an individual's   posting privileges for a period longer than 30 days regardless of the   type or severity of the disruptive incident.  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, mustWasserman                Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]

RFC 3934             Mailing List Management Update         October 2004   be carried out in accordance with other IETF-approved procedures.   SeeBCP 83 [RFC3683] for one set of procedures already defined and   accepted by the community.3.  Security Considerations   This document describes a modification to the IETF process for   managing mailing list discussions.  It has no security   considerations.4.  Acknowledgements   This document reflects a discussion that was held on the MPOWR   mailing list in December 2003 and January 2004.  In particular, the   following people contributed ideas that influenced this document:   Harald Alvestrand, Dave Crocker, James Kempf, and John Klensin.   This document was written with the xml2rfc tool described inRFC 2629   [RFC2629].5.  References5.1.  Normative References   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision              3",BCP 9,RFC 2026, October 1996.   [RFC2418]  Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and              Procedures",BCP 25,RFC 2418, September 1998.5.2.  Informative References   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML",RFC 2629,              June 1999.   [RFC3683]  Rose, M., "A Practice for Revoking Posting Rights to IETF              Mailing Lists",BCP 83,RFC 3683, March 2004.Wasserman                Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]

RFC 3934             Mailing List Management Update         October 20046.  Author's Address   Margaret Wasserman   ThingMagic   One Broadway, 14th Floor   Cambridge, MA  02142   USA   Phone: +1 617 758 4177   EMail: margaret@thingmagic.com   URI:http://www.thingmagic.com/Wasserman                Best Current Practice                  [Page 4]

RFC 3934             Mailing List Management Update         October 20047.  Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions   contained inBCP 78, and at www.rfc-editor.org, and except as set   forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.Intellectual Property   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any   Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information   on the ISOC's procedures with respect to rights in ISOC Documents can   be found inBCP 78 andBCP 79.   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository athttp://www.ietf.org/ipr.   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-   ipr@ietf.org.Acknowledgement   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the   Internet Society.Wasserman                Best Current Practice                  [Page 5]