Speaking for myself --
As noted in the appeal, quite a few documents relate to the revocation of
posting rights. They cover different types of lists, authorized enforcers,
potential behaviors, remedies, and procedures. At this point, the major
issue seems to be non-WG lists. I don't think that the full set of
documents needs to be replaced to clarify most of the questions. That would
be quite an undertaking and the IETF needs a clear, consistent set of
guidelines in the meantime.
So it is possible that a "glue document" would do the job; it is also
possible that the situation could be addressed without any documents at all,
just by a clear set of guidelines and a statement of policy The major issue
is whether the policy is clearly stated, widely understood and agreed to by
the community and fairly administered.
From: "Gray, Eric" <Eric.Gray@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Bernard Aboba'" <bernard_aboba@xxxxxxxxxxx>, leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx
CC: iab@xxxxxxxx, iesg@xxxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:40:29 -0500
Bernard,
The way I interpret your statement is that you feel that
replacement of the existing set of documents - possibly with a
single new document - is preferred to writing one or more new
documents with the intent to just "glue" the current set back
together.
Is that a correct interpretation?
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx]
--> On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
--> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:59 PM
--> To: leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx
--> Cc: iab@xxxxxxxx; iesg@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
--> Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
-->
--> My personal perspective is that on a subject as sensitive
--> as banning, it is
--> very important to have clear, well documented procedures
--> dictating the
--> process and who is allowed to initiate the ban. Creation
--> of more documents
--> may not be the solution to this problem, particularly since the
--> applicability and overlap of the existing documents is
--> already somewhat
--> unclear.
-->
-->
--> >From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--> >To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx>
--> >CC: IAB <iab@xxxxxxxx>, "Iesg (E-mail)" <iesg@xxxxxxxx>,
--> ietf@xxxxxxxx
--> >Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
--> >Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:42:24 -0500
--> >
--> >Sam,
--> >
--> >One IAB member's perspective: no, the expectation is not
--> >BCP upon BCP upon BCP.
--> >
--> >The devil is, of course, in the details. Even community commented
--> >on published operational procedures should not be at odds with
--> >our general or specific process documents, or else that seems
--> >to suggest the process documents need updating. And we have
--> >a community-defined process for that (which seems to result
--> >in a BCP).
--> >
--> >Again -- that's just one person's perspective.
--> >
--> >Leslie.
--> >
--> >Sam Hartman wrote:
--> >>
--> >>So, a clarification request:
--> >>
--> >>Am I correctly understanding that the clear and public requirement
--> >>does not always imply a process RFC? In particular, John
--> Klensin has
--> >>made an argument that there are a wide variety of matters that are
--> >>better handled by operational procedures made available
--> for community
--> >>comment than by BCP document.
--> >>
--> >>It's my reading that the IAB is interested in making sure that the
--> >>processes and rules are clear and public, not that they are all
--> >>codified in BCP.
--> >>
--> >>
--> >>I'm not looking for a formal response from the IAB but would
--> >>appreciate comments from its members.
--> >>
--> >>--Sam
--> >>
--> >>
--> >
-->
-->
-->
--> _______________________________________________
--> Ietf mailing list
--> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-->
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf