Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: BCP 83

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 06 October 2022 09:40 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F090FC1524CF; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 02:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.705
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.705 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, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x0tkbJ25RKTZ; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 02:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4922CC1524C1; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 02:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([207.242.50.40]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 2969dprN023521 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Oct 2022 02:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1665049203; x=1665135603; i=@elandsys.com; bh=2juNXuAxoM3logOsS8/5sxzdB39vvov+AySGxiZ4zuc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Txr1IE1ak7q/GjvtexBGsGXBXy4VX2fTPWMZFO6XLvE7WEQYnwyKWPfOMcen4cMAZ ob3InzxndVJyJSovIfFe+h8CaqPgypvzKQ6Vaf3RVt5Z8zjI962JfEsk2iwgsYepZP J/2Ps0e6Onv6uG98iFzrwunOW1ej5mVrb7jWnL8I=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20221006005807.0a280690@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2022 02:25:44 -0700
To: John Scudder <jgs=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, last-call@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <6F4A7EBB-E35C-430C-95CA-9DF8D7E0F895@juniper.net>
References: <CFE25E25-D131-468E-9923-80350D6216F3@ietf.org> <CAMm+Lwg4ZVW617hPBaLxHF8jJpm9pq2s66hO2LFr+-f1JAe9MA@mail.gmail.com> <abf3716a-0c87-ba7b-1e3c-f7d89f2da988@network-heretics.com> <CAPt1N1kNpfTG0AKzVN+LTt9wcwPHmbDqSSENuroMu_6EfvQ2wQ@mail.gmail.com> <d645ffda-4511-c555-8fc3-cb771243b360@network-heretics.com> <96ebb83d-6800-1760-2772-1af912b34413@nostrum.com> <6f6b2619-71a1-560f-3e9d-af522bad11af@network-heretics.com> <af07b879-0be7-b47d-7ec4-59da2b8eedc6@nostrum.com> <1973054181.725521.1664759781765@email.ionos.com> <21b4e88e-c33c-08fb-398c-df10924bbf15@network-heretics.com> <6F4A7EBB-E35C-430C-95CA-9DF8D7E0F895@juniper.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/VHOC8vIYY766V9tx-GcNwEbLMYk>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: BCP 83
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2022 09:40:12 -0000

Hi John,
At 07:04 AM 03-10-2022, John Scudder wrote:
>I'm curious as to what you think the right 
>approach would have been, then. Let's review. BCP 83 says:
>
>    A PR-action identifies one or more individuals, citing messages
>    posted by those individuals to an IETF mailing list, that appear to
>    be abusive of the consensus-driven process.
>
>So, the initiation of the PR-Action requires 
>that the IESG form some opinion as to the 
>whether the cited messages "appear to be abusive 
>of the consensus-driven process".

The requirement is for a a PR-action to initiated 
by an IESG Area Director.  The intent was for it 
to be similar to a "protocol action".  The text 
quoted above does not require other Area 
Directors to form an opinion about whether the 
messages posted by the individuals appear to be 
abusive of the consensus-driven process.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy