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
From: Leslie Daigle <leslie(_at_)thinkingcat(_dot_)com>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>
CC: IAB <iab(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, "Iesg (E-mail)" <iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>,
Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:42:24 -0500
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.
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.
Ietf mailing list