----- Original Message ----- From: "The IESG" <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 12:29 AM Subject: Last Call: 'Progressive Posting Rights Supsensions' to BCP (draft-carpenter-rescind-3683) > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > the following document: > > - 'Progressive Posting Rights Supsensions ' > <draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-03.txt> as a BCP > This document abolishes the existing form of indefinite Posting > Rights Action and restores the previous option of finite posting > rights suspensions authorized by an Area Director. It obsoletes RFC > 3683 and updates RFC 2418 and RFC 3934. > > Publication of this document will classify RFC 3683 as historic. > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the > iesg@xxxxxxxx or ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2006-11-17. > > During IESG evaluation, an AD raised the concern that the > consensus shown during the last call of this document might not be > strong enough to justify approval. In order to determine the strength > of the consensus, the IESG asks the community to focus on the following > questions in last call responses: > > 1) Do you support the proposal in section 2 of the draft to restore > the AD and IESG's ability to suspend posting rights for longer than > 30 days and to approve alternative methods of mailing list control > as originally documented in RFC 2418? > Not as it is documented in this I-D; the wording is not careful enough - eg RFC2418 spells out that direct communication should be off list; RFC3934 may have removed this but it should reinstated to improve clarity. > > 2) Do you support the proposal in section 3 to rescind RFC 3683? > No; RFC3683 does not remove or modify the toolkit available, it adds a new one. The bald statement that the present IESG have found it 'troublesome and contentious in practice' is inadequate to justify its repeal. > 3) Do you have any concerns about approving one part of the draft > without approving the other? > Yes, most definitely. > > 4) Do you have any other comments on the document? Rather than patch RFC2418, that RFC should be reissued; this is a key process for the IETF and we should not have to try and work out from multiple RFC what the current state is. Tom Petch > > The file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-03.txt > > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf