Hi, whenever somebody clicks on http://ietf.org/maillist.html
they get a rather intimidating NOTE WELL page with the "fine
print" (actually in a large font) for contributions to the
IETF. In essence it's this:
| Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for
| publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC
| and any statement made within the context of an IETF
| activity is considered an "IETF Contribution".
So if a poster on an IETF list proposes to write A in RFC X,
and a later RFC X in fact does A (or not), then the poster
can't later forbid to do A in RFC X. It's about the normal
IETF "intellectual property rights", the same rules cited
in RFC 4408 affect also IETF mailing lists.
| A participant in any IETF activity acknowledges that written,
| audio and video records of meetings may be made and may be
| available to the public.
Wrt mailing lists that means that they're archived. And if
posters later demand to delete their articles from the public
archives they're in trouble (e.g. many IETF lists are also
archived on GMaNe). An archived public list is an archived
public list... <shrug /> "Don't drink and post" is a good
idea not only in Usenet.
| A participant in any IETF activity is deemed to accept all
| IETF rules of process, as documented in Best Current
| Practices RFCs and IESG Statements.
That's rather vague, but for mailing lists it boils down to
two RFCs: 3683 and 3984. As some here might still know
RFC 3984 was also adopted for this list (SPF discuss), when
some flamewars were near to get out of hand. 3683 is about
the permission (for list admins) to ban "recognized trolls",
complete with an IETF last call, like a proposed standard.
Okay, and here's the plan, I like to submit "SPF Discuss"
as "other list" adding it to this page:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi
I've already submitted the SMTP, NNTP, and POP3 lists to
this collection over the years, filling out the form is no
problem. Clearly "SPF discuss" is a list interesting for
IETF participants (as far as they're interested in SPF
or related drafts), and discussing the "IETF experiment"
known as RFC 4408 is an IETF activity.
If _we_ say so (and Lisa or Chris as "apps" ADs approve
the submission. The point is _we_ - it's no minor step
in the direction of a future 4408bis standard. I'd hate
to be forced to do this on say the mxcomp (MARID) list
(fortunately not listed as "other list"), or something.
It should be a SPF Council resolution reflecting what
the SPF Community (all 10 active posters :-) wants.
Good, bad, ugly, don't care, anybody ?
Frank
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735