Protocol Action: 'IETF Guidelines for Conduct' to Best Current Practice (draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-07.txt)

The IESG <> Thu, 16 January 2014 14:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FE531AE0D7 for <>; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:52:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rbrHH4M4LWsq; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:52:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34EC1AE380; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:52:09 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'IETF Guidelines for Conduct' to Best Current Practice (draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-07.txt)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90.p2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:52:09 -0800
Cc: RFC Editor <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:52:13 -0000

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IETF Guidelines for Conduct'
  (draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-07.txt) as Best Current Practice

This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.

The IESG contact person is Jari Arkko.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Technical Summary

   This is a re-visit of the existing RFC on code of conduct.

Working Group Summary

   There was quite a bit of discussion during the IETF Last Call and before.
   The editor and document shepherd have been active in the discussion.
   The perhaps main remaining question is whether some anti-harassment
   high-level goal text about IETF being a professional forum should find its way
   into the draft.

Document Quality

   The document is well formed and has been broadly discussed.


   The document shepherd is Ines Robes. The responsible AD is Jari Arkko.

RFC Editor Note

  In section 3, s/foreseeable/foreseen/