As written, RFC 2418 [RFC2418] gives WG chairs more authority to
manage face-to-face discussions than to manage mailing list
discussions. In face-to-face meetings, the WG chair has the
authority "to refuse to grant the floor to any individual who is
unprepared or otherwise covering inappropriate material, or who, in
the opinion of the Chair, is disrupting the WG process." However,
RFC 2418 does not give the WG Chair the authority to suspend the
mailing list posting privileges of an individual who is similarly
disrupting WG mailing list discussions. RFC 2418 explicitly requires
full IESG approval for this action.
This document is an update to RFC 2418, section 3.2. It gives WG
chairs the authority to temporarily suspend the posting privileges of
disruptive individuals without IESG approval.
2. Specific Changes to RFC 2418
The following paragraphs supersede the last paragraph of RFC 2418,
As in face-to-face sessions, occasionally one or more individuals may
engage in behavior on a mailing list that, in the opinion of the WG
chair, is disruptive to the WG process. Unless the disruptive
behavior is severe enough that it must be stopped immediately, the WG
chair should attempt to discourage the disruptive behavior by
communicating directly with the offending individual. If the
behavior persists, the WG chair should send at least one public
warning on the WG mailing list. As a last resort and typically after
one or more explicit warnings and consultation with the responsible
Area Director, the WG chair may suspend the mailing list posting
privileges of the disruptive individual for a period of not more than
30 days. Even while posting privileges are suspended, the individual
must not be prevented from receiving messages posted to the list.
Like all other WG chair decisions, any suspension of posting
privileges is subject to appeal, as described in RFC 2026 [RFC2026].
This mechanism is intended to permit a WG chair to suspend posting
privileges of a disruptive individual for a short period of time.
This mechanism does not permit WG chairs to suspend an individual's
posting privileges for a period longer than 30 days regardless of the
type or severity of the disruptive incident. However, further
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 carried out in accordance with other IETF-approved procedures.
See BCP 83 [RFC3683] for one set of procedures already defined and
accepted by the community.
3. Security Considerations
This document describes a modification to the IETF process for
managing mailing list discussions. It has no security
This document reflects a discussion that was held on the MPOWR
mailing list in December 2003 and January 2004. In particular, the
following people contributed ideas that influenced this document:
Harald Alvestrand, Dave Crocker, James Kempf, and John Klensin.
This document was written with the xml2rfc tool described in RFC 2629
5.1. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
5.2. Informative References
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
[RFC3683] Rose, M., "A Practice for Revoking Posting Rights to IETF
Mailing Lists", BCP 83, RFC 3683, March 2004.
7. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and at www.rfc-editor.org, and except as set
forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the ISOC's procedures with respect to rights in ISOC Documents can
be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the