]> NetApp

Stenbergintie 12 B Kauniainen 02700 FI lars@eggert.org https://eggert.org/

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) discussion mailing list furthers the development and specification of Internet technology through the general discussion of technical, procedural, operational and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exists. As this is the most general IETF mailing list, considerable latitude in terms of topics is allowed, but there are posts and topics that are unsuitable for this mailing list. This document defines the charter for the IETF discussion list and explains its scope. This document obsoletes RFC3005 and updates RFC3683.

Introduction The IETF discussion list furthers the development and specification of Internet technology through the general discussion of technical, procedural, operational and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exists. As this is the most general IETF mailing list, considerable latitude in terms of topics is allowed. However, there are posts and topics that are unsuitable for this mailing list. This document defines the charter for the IETF discussion list and explains its scope. The IETF Note Well applies to discussions on the IETF discussion list and all other IETF mailing lists, and requires conformance with the IETF Guidelines for Conduct and the Anti-Harassment Policy , among others. This document obsoletes , documenting the use of other mailing lists for discussions that used to be in scope for the IETF discussion list, referring to applicable policies such as the Guidelines for Conduct and the Anti-Harassment Policy , and clarifying moderation procedures. It also updates part of , which copies the list of "inappropriate postings" from . This list in is hence updated by the new list in below.

Charter for the IETF Discussion List The IETF discussion list is meant for discussions for which a more appropriate list does not exist, such as discussions that do not fall within the scope of any working group, area, or other established list. When discussions are started on the IETF discussion list for which such a venue does exist, they should be continued at that other venue as soon as this is pointed out. When no dedicated mailing list exists for a topic, it may be preferable to request the creation of one and announce the availability of the new list on the IETF discussion list and on other related lists, such as area lists, rather than discussing that topic on the IETF discussion list. Appropriate postings to the IETF discussion list include:

• Initial discussion of technical issues that are candidates for IETF work, but have not yet identified appropriate mailing lists.
• Questions and clarifications concerning practical aspects of IETF meetings, although most of these topics are better brought up on the discussion list for IETF LLC administrative issues or the attendee discussion list for a given IETF meeting.
• Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are sponsored or endorsed by the IETF, IRTF, IAB or the Internet Society, although the IETF announcement list is the preferred list for these.
• Discussions of IETF direction, policy, and the standards process in general, when a more suitable list (such as the discussion list for IETF LLC administrative issues , the IAB discussion list for architectural issues , a meeting attendees list, a process-oriented WG list, etc.) cannot be identified.

These topics used to be in scope for the IETF discussion list, but have since moved to dedicated lists:

• Last Call discussions of documents now take place on the IETF Last Calls mailing list .
• Discussion of IETF administrative policies now takes place on the discussion list for IETF LLC administrative issues .

Inappropriate postings include:

• Advertising and other unsolicited bulk e-mail
• Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings, activities, or technical topics
• Uncivil commentary, regardless of the general subject, per the IETF Note Well
• Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or the IETF.

Moderation The IETF Chair appoints Moderators (previously known as the "sergeant-at-arms") for the IETF discussion list that are empowered to restrict posting by a person, or to an email thread, when the content is inappropriate and represents a pattern of abuse. They are encouraged to take into account the overall nature of the postings by an individual and whether particular postings are an aberration or typical. Moderation of the IETF discussion list, including the handling of any appeals, is to be guided by the IETF discussion list charter specified in , and the related guidance from that applies to all mailing lists. The moderators are intended to establish a self-moderation function on the community, by the community. Because the IESG and IAB are in the appeals chain for moderator decisions (see below), the IETF Chair therefore should not appoint a moderator who is serving in such a role. If a moderator is selected for the IESG or IAB, they will step down from the moderator team. Apart from appointing moderators, the IETF Chair should refrain from the day-to-day operation and management of the moderator team. The moderator team will independently define, publish, and execute their role; see the current set of operating procedures and abuse patterns . The moderator team should reach out to the IETF Chair for any conflict resolution in a timely manner. Because a moderator serves at the discretion of the IETF Chair - even if the IETF Chair is not otherwise involved in the operation of the moderator team - any moderator decision can be appealed to the IETF Chair, per . Decisions by the IETF Chair can be appealed to the IESG as whole, again per .

Security Considerations The usual security considerations do not apply to this document. Potential abuse of the moderation process for the suppression of undesired opinions is counteracted by the availability of an appeals process, per .

IANA Considerations This document does not request any IANA actions.

References Normative References This memo documents the process used by the Internet community for the standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines the stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a document between stages and the types of documents used during this process. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Informative References IETF Discussion List Moderator Team IETF Discussion List Moderator Team IETF IETF IETF IETF IETF IETF IAB This document provides a set of guidelines for personal interaction in the Internet Engineering Task Force. The guidelines recognize the diversity of IETF participants, emphasize the value of mutual respect, and stress the broad applicability of our work. This document is an updated version of the guidelines for conduct originally published in RFC 3184. IETF Participants must not engage in harassment while at IETF meetings, virtual meetings, or social events or while participating in mailing lists. This document lays out procedures for managing and enforcing this policy. This document updates RFC 2418 by defining new working group guidelines and procedures. This document updates RFC 7437 by allowing the Ombudsteam to form a recall petition without further signatories. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) discussion mailing list furthers the development and specification of Internet technology through discussion of technical issues, and hosts discussions of IETF direction, policy, meetings, and procedures. As this is the most general IETF mailing list, considerable latitude is allowed. Advertising, whether to solicit business or promote employment opportunities, falls well outside the range of acceptable topics, as do discussions of a personal nature. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. All self-governing bodies have ways of managing the scope of participant interaction. The IETF uses a consensus-driven process for developing computer-communications standards in an open fashion. An important part of this consensus-driven process is the pervasive use of mailing lists for discussion. Notably, in a small number of cases, a participant has engaged in a "denial-of-service" attack to disrupt the consensus-driven process. Regrettably, as these bad faith attacks become more common, the IETF needs to establish a practice that reduces or eliminates these attacks. This memo recommends such a practice for use by the IETF. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. All RFCs are required to have a Security Considerations section. Historically, such sections have been relatively weak. This document provides guidelines to RFC authors on how to write a good Security Considerations section. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.

Changes

Since draft-eggert-bcp45bis-08

• Update , because it copies text from that this document updates. See this issue.
• addressed Eric Vyncke's IESG review
• addressed Francesca Palombini's IESG review and Carsten Bormann's ART ART review
• addressed John Scudder's IESG review
• addressed Roman Danyliw's IESG review
• addressed Ben Kaduk's IESG review

Since draft-eggert-bcp45bis-07

• incorporated suggestions from Adrian Farrel
• incorporated some suggestions from S Moonesamy
• applied suggestions from Robert Wilton

Since draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06

• applied a suggestion from Lloyd Wood to add access dates to cited URLs
• fixes to this change log
• applied a suggestion from Brian Carpenter to change "unprofessional" to "uncivil"

Since draft-eggert-bcp45bis-05

• clarification of list scope as suggested by Brian Carpenter

Since draft-eggert-bcp45bis-04

• use RFC2026 appeals process
• addressed comments from Barry Leiba
• quote cited text from Wikipedia

Since draft-eggert-bcp45bis-03

• addressed Robert Wilton's AD review

Since draft-eggert-bcp45bis-02

• additional details about and guidelines for the SAA team, based on a suggestion from Dhruv Dhody
• remove reference to the IETF 110 attendees list, since those lists are being removed by the secretariat shortly after each meeting

Since draft-eggert-bcp45bis-01

• applied a suggestion from Brian Carpenter
• rephrased beginning of , as suggested by Stephen Farrell
• incorporated a suggestion from Christian Huitema

Since draft-eggert-bcp45bis-00

• added introduction, security considerations and IANA considerations sections
• added "note to readers" with pointers to the discussion list and the repo
• added references to IETF Sergeants-at-Arms procedures
• added references to various mailing lists for topics that used to be in scope for the IETF discussion list but no longer are
• added references to the Note Well and relevant other policies that apply

Since RFC3005

• converted to Markdown and xml2rfc v3
• updated references (as part of the conversion)
• updated author information
• various formatting changes

Acknowledgements The following people have made contributions to this document:

• Adrian Farrel
• Barry Leiba
• Ben Kaduk
• Brian Carpenter
• Carsten Bormann
• Christian Huitema
• Dhruv Dhody
• Eric Rescorla
• Eric Vyncke
• Francesca Palombini
• John Scudder
• Lloyd Wood
• Martin Thomson
• Robert Wilton
• S Moonesamy
• Stephen Farrell

Susan R. Harris authored , which this document replaces.