Re: [hrpc] first screening of RFC7230 for Human Rights leads

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

One snippet...

On 03/02/15 23:20, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Unfortunately, not all proposed standards hold this line on content
> neutrality:
> 
>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-safe-hint-05
> 
> (of course, the above draft isn't an official RFC yet -- should we be
> comparing drafts-that-didn't make it with drafts that ended up becoming
> RFCs?)

AFAIK that draft is not continuing to publication. The IESG
ballot positions are at [1]. I don't know if the author plans to
bring it back or somewhere else in the same or some other form.

So I'd not concentrate on that, unless you're interested in how
the IETF process has (so far) stopped a bad idea from becoming
an RFC and proposed standard. If you are interested in the latter,
then I'm happy to help explain some of the minutiae, e.g. that
10 yes or no-objections IESG ballots are needed for a proposed
standard. (This was the first time I've ever seen 6 abstain
ballots on a draft in my 4 years on the IESG.)

S.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-safe-hint/ballot/