Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin

"Bernard Aboba" <> Tue, 31 January 2006 21:24 UTC

Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F42yy-0006ey-21; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:24:12 -0500
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F41qM-0001Kk-OO; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:11:15 -0500
Received: from (ietf-mx []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23705; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:09:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F41pb-0002Ns-QM; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:10:29 -0500
Received: from mail pickup service by with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:58:53 -0800
Message-ID: <BAY106-F156958BA64C5DBCB441D0F93080@phx.gbl>
Received: from by with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:58:53 GMT
X-Originating-IP: []
X-Originating-Email: []
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Bernard Aboba <>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:58:53 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2006 19:58:53.0750 (UTC) FILETIME=[C328ED60:01C626A0]
X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:24:07 -0500
Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

My personal perspective is that on a subject as sensitive as banning, it is 
very important to have clear, well documented procedures dictating the 
process and who is allowed to initiate the ban.  Creation of more documents 
may not be the solution to this problem, particularly since the 
applicability and overlap of the existing documents is already somewhat 

>From: Leslie Daigle <>
>To: Sam Hartman <>
>CC: IAB <>, "Iesg (E-mail)" <>,
>Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
>Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:42:24 -0500
>One IAB member's perspective:  no, the expectation is not
>BCP upon BCP upon BCP.
>The devil is, of course, in the details.   Even community commented
>on published operational procedures should not be at odds with
>our general or specific process documents, or else that seems
>to suggest the process documents need updating.  And we have
>a community-defined process for that (which seems to result
>in a BCP).
>Again -- that's just one person's perspective.
>Sam Hartman wrote:
>>So, a clarification request:
>>Am I correctly understanding that the clear and public requirement
>>does not always imply a process RFC?  In particular, John Klensin has
>>made an argument that there are a wide variety of matters that are
>>better handled by operational procedures made available for community
>>comment than by BCP document.
>>It's my reading that the IAB is interested in making sure that the
>>processes and rules are clear and public, not that they are all
>>codified in BCP.
>>I'm not looking for a formal response from the IAB but would
>>appreciate comments from its members.

Ietf mailing list