Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                            M. RoseRequest for Comments: 3683                  Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.BCP: 83                                                       March 2004Category: Best Current PracticeA Practice for Revoking Posting Rights to 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). All Rights Reserved.Abstract   All self-governing bodies have ways of managing the scope of   participant interaction.  The IETF uses a consensus-driven process   for developing computer-communications standards in an open fashion.   An important part of this consensus-driven process is the pervasive   use of mailing lists for discussion.  Notably, in a small number of   cases, a participant has engaged in a "denial-of-service" attack to   disrupt the consensus-driven process.  Regrettably, as these bad   faith attacks become more common, the IETF needs to establish a   practice that reduces or eliminates these attacks.  This memo   recommends such a practice for use by the IETF.Rose                     Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]

RFC 3683        Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       March 2004Table of Contents1.  Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32.  A Revocation Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53.  Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85.  Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9   Appendix -  Q & A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10   Author's Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12   Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Rose                     Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]

RFC 3683        Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       March 20041.  Introduction   All self-governing bodies have ways of managing the scope of   participant interaction.  For example, deliberative assemblies often   employ "rules of order" for determining who gets to speak, when, and   for how long.  Similarly, there is widespread agreement in so-called   "liberal" societies that the right to free speech is not absolute,   e.g., political speech is given more leeway than commercial speech,   and some forms of speech (e.g., egregious libel or incitement to   violence) are considered unacceptable.   The IETF uses a consensus-driven process for developing computer-   communications standards in an open fashion.  An important part of   this consensus-driven process is the pervasive use of mailing lists   for discussion.  Unlike many other organizations, anyone may post   messages on those IETF mailing lists, and in doing so, participate in   the IETF process.  Historically, this approach has worked very well   in the IETF, as it fosters participation from a wide range of   stakeholders.  (For the purposes of this memo, the term "IETF mailing   list" refers to any mailing list functioning under IETF auspices,   such as the IETF general discussion list, or a working group or   design team mailing list.)   Notably, in a small number of cases, a participant has engaged in   what amounts to a "denial-of-service" attack to disrupt the   consensus-driven process.  Typically, these attacks are made by   repeatedly posting messages that are off-topic, inflammatory, or   otherwise counter-productive.  In contrast, good faith disagreement   is a healthy part of the consensus-driven process.   For example, if a working group is unable to reach consensus, this is   an acceptable, albeit unfortunate, outcome; however, if that working   group fails to achieve consensus because it is being continuously   disrupted, then the disruption constitutes an abuse of the   consensus-driven process.  Interactions of this type are   fundamentally different from "the lone voice of dissent" in which a   participant expresses a view that is discussed but does not achieve   consensus.  In other words, individual bad faith should not trump   community goodwill.Rose                     Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]

RFC 3683        Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       March 2004   Guidelines have been developed for dealing with abusive behavior   (c.f., Section 3.2 of [1] and [2]).  Although not exhaustive,   examples of abusive or otherwise inappropriate postings to IETF   mailing lists include:   o  unsolicited bulk e-mail;   o  discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings,      activities, or technical concerns;   o  unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject; and,   o  announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not      sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF.   In practice, the application of those guidelines has included the   temporary suspension of posting rights to a specific mailing list.   If necessary, the length of the suspension has been increased with   each successive suspension.  In many cases, applying those guidelines   will produce the desired modification in behaviour.  However, when   those guidelines fail to provide the desired modification in   behaviour, more drastic measures should be available to reduce or   eliminate these attacks' impact on the IETF process.   This document describes one such drastic measure.Rose                     Best Current Practice                  [Page 4]

RFC 3683        Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       March 20042. A Revocation Practice   Please refer to [3] for the meaning conveyed by the uppercase words   in this section.   As a part of its activities, the Internet Engineering Steering Group   (IESG) makes decisions about "actions".  Typically, an action refers   to the publication of a document on the standards-track, the   chartering of a working group, and so on.  This memo recommends that   the IESG also undertake a new type of action, termed a PR-action   ("posting rights" action).   A PR-action identifies one or more individuals, citing messages   posted by those individuals to an IETF mailing list, that appear to   be abusive of the consensus-driven process.  If approved by the IESG,   then:   o  those identified on the PR-action have their posting rights to      that IETF mailing list removed; and,   o  maintainers of any IETF mailing list may, at their discretion,      also remove posting rights to that IETF mailing list.   Once taken, this action remains in force until explicitly nullified   and SHOULD remain in force for at least one year.   One year after the PR-action is approved, a new PR-action MAY be   introduced which restores the posting rights for that individual.   The IESG SHOULD consider the frequency of nullifying requests when   evaluating a new PR-action.  If the posting rights are restored the   individual is responsible for contacting the owners of the mailing   lists to have them restored.   Regardless of whether the PR-action revokes or restores posting   rights, the IESG follows the same algorithm as with its other   actions:   1.  it is introduced by an IESG Area Director (AD), who, prior to       doing so, may choose to inform the interested parties;   2.  it is published as an IESG last call on the IETF general       discussion list;   3.  it is discussed by the community;Rose                     Best Current Practice                  [Page 5]

RFC 3683        Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       March 2004   4.  it is discussed by the IESG; and, finally,   5.  using the usual consensus-based process, it is decided upon by       the IESG.   Of course, as with all IESG actions, the appeals process outlined in   [4] may be invoked to contest a PR-action approved by the IESG.   Working groups SHOULD ensure that their associated mailing list is   manageable.  For example, some may try to circumvent the revocation   of their posting rights by changing email addresses; accordingly it   should be possible to restrict the new email address.   Finally, note that the scope of a PR-action deals solely with posting   rights.  Consistent with the final paragraph of Section 3.2 of [1],   no action may be taken to prevent individuals from receiving messages   sent to a mailing list.Rose                     Best Current Practice                  [Page 6]

RFC 3683        Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       March 20043. Acknowledgements   The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of: Brian   Carpenter, Jim Galvin, Jeff Haas, Ted Hardie, Russ Housley, Thomas   Narten, Jon Peterson, Margaret Wasserman, and Bert Wijnen.Rose                     Best Current Practice                  [Page 7]

RFC 3683        Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       March 20044. Security Considerations   This memo deals with matters of process, not protocol.   A reasonable person might note that this memo describes a mechanism   to throttle active denial-of-service attacks against the consensus-   driven process used by the IETF.Rose                     Best Current Practice                  [Page 8]

RFC 3683        Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       March 20045.  Normative References   [1]  Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures",BCP25,RFC 2418, September 1998.   [2]  Harris, S., "IETF Discussion List Charter",BCP 45,RFC 3005,        November 2000.   [3]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement        Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997.   [4]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",BCP9,RFC 2026, October 1996.Rose                     Best Current Practice                  [Page 9]

RFC 3683        Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       March 2004Appendix A. Q & A   Q: Isn't a year too long?   A: No.      An initial PR-action is not undertaken lightly.  It is approved      only after a period of substantive consideration and community      review.  If a PR-action is approved, then this indicates that a      serious situation has arisen.   Q: Why not require one PR-action per IETF mailing list?   A: To do so would enable a prolonged series of denial-of-service      attacks.      If someone is poorly-behaved on one IETF mailing list, but well-      behaved on another, then the maintainer for the second IETF      mailing list needn't revoke posting rights.  However, the more      likely scenario is that someone who behaves poorly on one IETF      mailing list is unwilling to be well-behaved on any IETF mailing      list.   Q: Should the initiation of a PR-action come from outside the IESG?   A: Informally, sure; formally, no.      Under the IETF's consensus-driven process, IESG actions are always      formally initiated by an IESG Area Director (AD).  In practice,      the motivation for an IESG member to initiate an action almost      always comes from outside the IESG.  For example, when a working      group (WG) reaches consensus on a document, the WG chair informs      the relevant AD that the document is ready for the AD to consider      it for a document action.  In the case of this document -- an IETF      individual submission -- the author will iteratively circulate the      document for wide discussion and make revisions.  At some point,      the author will contact an AD and ask for a document action to      publish this document as a Best Current Practice (BCP).   Q: Is this censorship?   A: Only if you believe in anarchy.      What is important is that the rules surrounding PR-actions exhibit      the same properties used by the rest of the consensus-based      process.Rose                     Best Current Practice                 [Page 10]

RFC 3683        Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       March 2004   Q: C'mon! You really are a closet fascist.   A: No, I'm a libertarian.      Frankly, I would prefer that people behave reasonably and act in      good faith.  Since my first involvement with the IETF (nee GADS,      circa 1983), everyone understood that reasonable behavior was a      good thing.  After 20 years, I regret to inform you that this step      is inevitable.Rose                     Best Current Practice                 [Page 11]

RFC 3683        Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       March 2004Author's Address   Marshall T. Rose   Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.   POB 255268   Sacramento, CA  95865-5268   US   Phone: +1 916 483 8878   EMail: mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.usRose                     Best Current Practice                 [Page 12]

RFC 3683        Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       March 2004Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained inBCP 78 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 procedures with respect to   rights in RFC 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.Rose                     Best Current Practice                 [Page 13]