The tracker tracks....
the RFC Editor note was modified (by me) on July 24, 2004. The reason
was a comment from Ted Hardie on July 21, augumenting a DISCUSS from
>he last paragraph of Section 2 should explain the relationship of this
document to RFC 3683.
>I agree with Steve, and would have entered the same DISCUSS. But I'll
go one better and
>suggest text. Here's the current:
> disruptive behavior by the same individual will be considered
> separately and may result in further warnings or suspensions. Other
> methods of mailing list control, including longer suspensions, must
> be approved by the IESG or carried out in accordance with other
> IESG-approved procedures.
>I suggest adding the following added sentence: See BCP83 (RFC 3683)
>for on set of procedures already defined and accepted by the community.
>I also think the sentence above should be changed a bit, to reflect the
>idea that it is IETF approved procedures that result in suspensions,
>than IESG approved suspensions. New suggestion
> Other methods of mailing list control, including longer
> be approved by the IESG and carried out in accordance with other
> IETF-approved procedures. See BCP83 (RFC 3683 for one set of
> already defined and accepted by the community.
Apparently Ted's proposal found favour with the IESG of that time.
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
There is an interesting lesson to be learned from our mailing list
The mailing list procedures draft currently under discussion
(draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-01.txt) contains the following correct
assessment of our current mailing list management situation:
"RFC 3934 [RFC3934] amends RFC 2418 and grants the working group chair
the ability to suspend a member's posting rights for 30 days.
However it appears to remove the ability of the AD and IESG to
approve longer suspensions or alternative procedures: "Other methods
of mailing list control, including longer suspensions, must be
carried out in accordance with other IETF-approved procedures." An
argument could be made that the amendment was not intended to remove
the already-approved procedures in RFC 2418 although a perhaps
stronger argument can be made that the actual textual changes have
the effect of removing these procedures."
Unfortunately, this problem was introduced during IESG and/or RFC Editor
processing of RFC 3934. The last published I-D (the one circulated for IETF
methods of mailing list control, including longer suspensions, must
be approved by the IESG or carried out in accordance with other
I was the author of this draft, but I no longer remember how/when this
change was introduced. Someone from the IESG or RFC Editor might be able to
tell from checking their records, but the change isn't mentioned in the
BTW, I am not disavowing responsibility for this change. I have every
reason to believe that I, as author of the RFC in question, was asked my
Ietf mailing list