Julien.Maisonneuve@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > (this should not go on ietf@ietf, but for lack of a better > list... please disregard if it bothers you) [...] > Banning should be exceptional. So far 3683 was never used (please correct me if I'm wrong). > Now we are presented with two dubious (read non obvious, > possibly requiring very careful inspection to arrive > to a conclusion) cases in the space of a few days Very different at the moment: Only an AD can start (or prepare to start) a "PR action". That might be what we've seen in the first case. This second case is still at the "convince an AD to support to start a PR action" stage. It's a private petition of Harald (he's affected as listmom of the tag review list, so unlike most others he's not free to use his killfile there). > it appears that the process itself is hardly symmetrical > and lacks clear consensus safeguards. That would come later in the "last call". At the moment the second case is a private list of signatures, same idea as e.g. <http://old.openspf.org/cgi-bin/openspf_pledge.cgi> - but of course the signatures of several (former) IETF Chairs, ADs, WG co-Chairs, Unicode Chair, TAO author, etc. might impress the poor active AD(s) who finally get(s) this list... > In a balanced world, this would spell doom for RFC3683. ...so far it's like an unpublished I-D. If you don't agree with it you could ignore it until the potential "last call". Bye, Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf