C.M. - One of us has horribly missed the point of John's email (I'm not
inferring it's you). Whichever one of us it is, the good news is I think we
actually agree with each other =)
The passage you quoted was indeed quoted by John but the way I read his post
was that he was quoting it to show how this situation did not actually
apply. That's why I asked him to provide relevant text from another rfc
other than 3683 since if he was saying that wasn't relevant I wanted to know
I support my interpretation by quoting what John said immediately after the
"This looks similar, but it does not require the one-year minimum, nor does
it require a LastCall."
Basically CM I agree with you wholeheartedly that the passage does apply and
that this situation should be governed by 3683.
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Nick Staff wrote:
Could you please specify the RFC that details the procedure
an AD requests that the IESG remove someone's posting
the IETF list (the RFC other 3683 of course). If there
isn't one then
I'd have to ask that you refrain from making wildly
as they are disruptive to the process.
Apparently you missed this in John's message (which you
quoted in its entirety, with garbled formatting):
RFC2418 allows a WG chair and the ADs to also take measures
is disrupting WG progress (sect 3.2).
] As with face-to-face sessions occasionally one or more
individuals ] may engage in behavior on a mailing list which
disrupts the WG's ] progress. In these cases the Chair
should attempt to discourage the ] behavior by communication
directly with the offending individual ] rather than on the
open mailing list. If the behavior persists then ] the Chair
must involve the Area Director in the issue. As a last ]
resort and after explicit warnings, the Area Director, with
the ] approval of the IESG, may request that the mailing list
maintainer ] block the ability of the offending individual to
post to the mailing ] list.
Look on the second paragraph on Page 13.
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list