IETF Discussion List Charter

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶

This Internet-Draft will expire on 27 January 2022.¶

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.¶

This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.¶

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

The IETF discussion list [IETF-DISCUSS] furthers the development and specification of Internet technology through the general discussion of topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exists. As this is the most general IETF mailing list, considerable latitude is allowed. However, there are posts 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 [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 [RFC7154] and the Anti-Harassment Policy [IETF-AHP], among others.¶

2. 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 area of any working group, area or other established list. When discussions are started on the IETF discussion list for which such venues do exist, they should be moved there as soon as this is pointed out.¶

When no dedicated mailing list exists, it may be preferable to request the creation of one [NON-WG-LISTS] and only announce the availability of the new list on the IETF discussion list and on other related lists, such as area lists.¶

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 [ADMIN-DISCUSS] or the attendee discussion list for a given IETF meeting.¶
• Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or the IETF, although the IETF announcement list [IETF-ANNOUNCE] is the preferred list for these.¶

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

• Last Call discussions of proposed protocol actions now take place on the IETF Last Calls mailing list [LAST-CALLS].¶
• Discussion of IETF administrative policies now take place on the discussion list for IETF LLC administrative issues [ADMIN-DISCUSS].¶

Inappropriate postings include:¶

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

3. Moderation

A sergeant-at-arms (SAA) is an officer appointed by a deliberative body to keep order during its meetings [SAA-WIKIPEDIA]. SAAs for the IETF discussion list are appointed by the IETF Chair and are empowered to restrict posting by a person, or of a 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.¶

The SAAs are intended to establish a self-moderation function on the community, by the community. The IETF Chair therefore should not appoint an SAA who is serving in a NomCom-appointed IETF leadership position. If an SAA is selected for such a position, they will step down as SAA.¶

Apart from appointing SAAs, the IETF Chair should divorce themselves from the day-to-day operation and management of the SAA team. This has been in practice for a while, and the SAA team has independently maintained definitions of abuse patterns [SAA-UPC] and operating procedures [SAA-SOP] for them. The SAA team should reach out to the IETF Chair for any conflict resolution in a timely manner.¶

Because an SAA serves at the discretion of the IETF Chair - even if the IETF Chair is not otherwise involved in the operation of the SAA team - any SAA decision could be appealed to the IAB. The IAB shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own choosing.¶

4. Security Considerations

This document does not raise any security issues.¶

5. IANA Considerations

This document does not request any IANA actions.¶

Appendix A. Acknowledgements

The following people have made contributions to this document:¶

• Brian Carpenter¶
• Christian Huitema¶
• Dhruv Dhody¶
• Eric Rescorla¶
• Martin Thomson¶
• Stephen Farrell¶

Susan R. Harris authored [RFC3005], which this document replaces.¶

Appendix B. Changes

Author's Address