Re: [Last-Call] Question for the IESG

S Moonesamy <> Tue, 11 October 2022 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957B2C159A32 for <>; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 07:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.706
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.706 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W_BBDn3dCwek for <>; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 07:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD6BC14F606 for <>; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 07:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 29BEuZLa003340 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Oct 2022 07:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1665500207; x=1665586607;; bh=k5pGr7WHb46Mt/j6XMozoEd/TaTAXUbqh2zRndYFbVk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=FNw7m7uKMtbmUOZujLwZla4EUW1wrrwR3saeJpa+Mh9xTBmcWrFShpQ7P0BA7nWKB d6uQUc8h+BWNZrrw2Be1P6X+DrpvDh5iwq5qxf/sB9b1oADmCQ8L/OvXJ7GrwEEa1b 8LNMPpcwJ/QOXRmTr9AUPclJ0T9D8bBeNcEAHY5M=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 07:54:36 -0700
To: John C Klensin <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <E07D908383FCC3EF63B6E49F@PSB>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <E07D908383FCC3EF63B6E49F@PSB>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Question for the IESG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 14:57:20 -0000

Hi John,
At 03:02 PM 06-10-2022, John C Klensin wrote:
>I am asking because, while I think parts of it have been very
>helpful and should be considered going forward, I am probably at
>least as sick of the scale and tone of some of the discussion as
>I infer at least some IESG members are. I also agree with those
>who have suggested that parts of the discussion itself have been
>at least as unpleasant, divisive, and disruptive than anything
>Dan (or anyone else, at least anyone not in the leadership)
>could manage on their own.   I'm trying to lay the foundation
>for a way forward that is more closely focused on the rather
>specific criteria that I understand (and have understood since
>2003-2004) BCP 83 to be about.  Or, to put it differently to
>allow asking if a PR-action against [removed] is the right decision
>whether or not the IESG wrote the optimal description of why
>action should be taken and why.
>And, fwiw, if, for some of us including myself, endorsing the
>PR-action will be taken as an endorsement of the current IESG
>statement and the methods and reasons for getting to this point,
>then it might feel that the endorsement/ approval is too
>expensive in terms of, e.g., the precedents that might be set.
>I am sure some will feel that moving in that direction would be
>letting the IESG off the hook for some of what appears in the
>description Lars circulated, but I believe that the IETF would
>better off if we could treat that as a separate question,
>perhaps even one that, for some community members reflecting on
>some IESG members, should be discussed with the Nomcom.

I have read the various comments on the thread.  The topics are, to 
put it mildly, quite controversial.

I looked up the definition of the word "censorship".  The American 
Library Association defines the "censorship" as "the suppression of 
ideas and information that some individuals, groups, or government 
officials find objectionable or dangerous".  It is the first time, if 
I am not mistaken, that a draft was removed from the I-D public 
repository.  The removal is not compliant with BCP 83.

BCP 83 is not listed in the "Note Well".  That does not negate the 
fact that it is part of the IETF statute book.  The criteria set in 
2004 in that BCP is open to interpretation.  There is a barrier to 
prevent misuse; the BCP requires an Area Director to make a judgement 
call.  The BCP includes an avenue to anyone who wants to contest the 
"PR-action", i.e. the appeals process.

BCP 83 lists the following case: a participant has engaged in what 
amounts to a "denial-of-service" attack to disrupt the 
consensus-driven process.  That is different from some of the points 
raised in the sub-threads (on this mailing list).

I am a bit curious about whether you will receive a reply to the question.

S. Moonesamy