i don't spend much time on the ietf these days; however, as the
author of 3683, i've received enough emails asking for comment, to
warrant a brief reply. this reply is not specifically directed to
margaret, she just has the misfortune of having authored the last
email in the thread that has arrived on my desktop.
by the way, although in some circles 3683 is known as "the patriot
act of the ietf", rumors that a copy of 3683 was seen on the grassy
knoll, is just that, rumors.
I do have some serious concerns regarding RFC 3683, especially as
it is currently being discussed...
Personally, I think that the mechanism described in RFC 3683 is an
awfully large hammer. I don't feel comfortable with the fact that
we have crafted this hammer, nor with the fact that we might
actually use it. Use of this mechanism against an individual
could be detrimental to that individual's reputation and/or to his
or her career. I am particularly uncomfortable with the idea that
we might consider unpopular, mis-guided, insistent, frequent and/or
hard-to-understand posts to be an abuse of the IETF consensus
process, as I am quite certain that I have fallen into many of
those categories from time-to-time. I am also personally appalled
by the fact that anyone would publicly agitate for use of this
mechanism on the IETF discussion list.
considerable thought went into 3683 to balance the open nature of the
community with the need to make progress. like most compromises, few
people are likely to be satisfied, and none are thrilled.
despite a whole lot of emails, i am unaware, as of this writing, of
any abuses of the 3683 mechanism. there is, of course, a lot of
healthy discussion.
3683 requires a considered deliberate effort by the decision-making
bodies to use. it invokes the full process mechanisms of the ietf,
and, if actioned, it leaves the "undo" to the discretion of the iesg.
what goes unsaid about any revocation of posting rights, no matter
how brief, will inevitably result in the full process mechanism -- no
matter how light a touch one proposes, the cost of enactment will be
the same, very high.
if the cost is always going to be high, then setting an arbitrary
"undo" period is unhelpful.
/mtr
ps: 3683 was distasteful to write. it is distasteful to defend, even
if the defense is merely stating the obvious with respect to human
nature.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf