[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Evaluating a draft on restricting posting rights
[note - adding Marshall to the CC line, since Jorge came up with some
suggestions for improvement that I think are worth considering....]
--On onsdag, mai 07, 2003 09:02:50 -0400 "Contreras, Jorge"
<Jorge.Contreras@haledorr.com> wrote:
This standard is a little loose. I would prefer to see a more
detailed rationale for initiating a P-R Action. There is a good
discussion of appropriate discussion list behavior in RFC 3005, which
is cited in the mrose I-D. However, technically, RFC 3005 only applies
to the IETF discussion list itself, and not all WG discussion lists.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to import the concepts from 3005
into this I-D so that there is a general IETF standard of acceptable
discussion list behavior. You could then say that repeated violations
of the "acceptable behavior" guidelines may lead to a P-R Action.
would citing RFC 3184 - "guidelines for conduct" be helpful?
I also note the mrose reference to Section 6.1 of RFC 2418. The better
reference might actually be to the last paragraph of Section 3.2,
which addresses the issue of disruptive postings directly, but in a
less detailed manner than either 3005 or the mrose I-D. I would also
ask whether the mrose I-D, if it becomes a BCP, is intended to
supersede the last paragraph of Sec. 3.2 of RFC 2418? If so, I think
this should be made explicit.
I'd forgotten that paragraph - good catch!
I also like the thought in 2418, 3.2 that the "barred" person should
still be able to *receive* postings from IETF lists, even if he/she
can't post anymore.
that's so obvious, nobody thought of stating it....