💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc3683.txt captured on 2024-06-16 at 17:45:44.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group M. Rose
Request for Comments: 3683 Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
BCP: 83 March 2004
Category: Best Current Practice
A Practice for Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
All self-governing bodies have ways of managing the scope of
participant interaction. The IETF uses a consensus-driven process
for developing computer-communications standards in an open fashion.
An important part of this consensus-driven process is the pervasive
use of mailing lists for discussion. Notably, in a small number of
cases, a participant has engaged in a "denial-of-service" attack to
disrupt the consensus-driven process. Regrettably, as these bad
faith attacks become more common, the IETF needs to establish a
practice that reduces or eliminates these attacks. This memo
recommends such a practice for use by the IETF.
Rose Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 3683 Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists March 2004
Table of Contents
1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. A Revocation Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix - Q & A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Rose Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 3683 Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists March 2004
1. Introduction
All self-governing bodies have ways of managing the scope of
participant interaction. For example, deliberative assemblies often
employ "rules of order" for determining who gets to speak, when, and
for how long. Similarly, there is widespread agreement in so-called
"liberal" societies that the right to free speech is not absolute,
e.g., political speech is given more leeway than commercial speech,
and some forms of speech (e.g., egregious libel or incitement to
violence) are considered unacceptable.
The IETF uses a consensus-driven process for developing computer-
communications standards in an open fashion. An important part of
this consensus-driven process is the pervasive use of mailing lists
for discussion. Unlike many other organizations, anyone may post
messages on those IETF mailing lists, and in doing so, participate in
the IETF process. Historically, this approach has worked very well
in the IETF, as it fosters participation from a wide range of
stakeholders. (For the purposes of this memo, the term "IETF mailing
list" refers to any mailing list functioning under IETF auspices,
such as the IETF general discussion list, or a working group or
design team mailing list.)
Notably, in a small number of cases, a participant has engaged in
what amounts to a "denial-of-service" attack to disrupt the
consensus-driven process. Typically, these attacks are made by
repeatedly posting messages that are off-topic, inflammatory, or
otherwise counter-productive. In contrast, good faith disagreement
is a healthy part of the consensus-driven process.
For example, if a working group is unable to reach consensus, this is
an acceptable, albeit unfortunate, outcome; however, if that working
group fails to achieve consensus because it is being continuously
disrupted, then the disruption constitutes an abuse of the
consensus-driven process. Interactions of this type are
fundamentally different from "the lone voice of dissent" in which a
participant expresses a view that is discussed but does not achieve
consensus. In other words, individual bad faith should not trump
community goodwill.
Rose Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 3683 Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists March 2004
Guidelines have been developed for dealing with abusive behavior
(c.f., Section 3.2 of [1] and [2]). Although not exhaustive,
examples of abusive or otherwise inappropriate postings to IETF
mailing lists include:
o unsolicited bulk e-mail;
o discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings,
activities, or technical concerns;
o unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject; and,
o announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not
sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF.
In practice, the application of those guidelines has included the
temporary suspension of posting rights to a specific mailing list.
If necessary, the length of the suspension has been increased with
each successive suspension. In many cases, applying those guidelines
will produce the desired modification in behaviour. However, when
those guidelines fail to provide the desired modification in
behaviour, more drastic measures should be available to reduce or
eliminate these attacks' impact on the IETF process.
This document describes one such drastic measure.
Rose Best Current Practice [Page 4]
RFC 3683 Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists March 2004
2. A Revocation Practice
Please refer to [3] for the meaning conveyed by the uppercase words
in this section.
As a part of its activities, the Internet Engineering Steering Group
(IESG) makes decisions about "actions". Typically, an action refers
to the publication of a document on the standards-track, the
chartering of a working group, and so on. This memo recommends that
the IESG also undertake a new type of action, termed a PR-action
("posting rights" action).
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. If approved by the IESG,
then:
o those identified on the PR-action have their posting rights to
that IETF mailing list removed; and,
o maintainers of any IETF mailing list may, at their discretion,
also remove posting rights to that IETF mailing list.
Once taken, this action remains in force until explicitly nullified
and SHOULD remain in force for at least one year.
One year after the PR-action is approved, a new PR-action MAY be
introduced which restores the posting rights for that individual.
The IESG SHOULD consider the frequency of nullifying requests when
evaluating a new PR-action. If the posting rights are restored the
individual is responsible for contacting the owners of the mailing
lists to have them restored.
Regardless of whether the PR-action revokes or restores posting
rights, the IESG follows the same algorithm as with its other
actions:
1. it is introduced by an IESG Area Director (AD), who, prior to
doing so, may choose to inform the interested parties;
2. it is published as an IESG last call on the IETF general
discussion list;
3. it is discussed by the community;
Rose Best Current Practice [Page 5]
RFC 3683 Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists March 2004
4. it is discussed by the IESG; and, finally,
5. using the usual consensus-based process, it is decided upon by
the IESG.
Of course, as with all IESG actions, the appeals process outlined in
[4] may be invoked to contest a PR-action approved by the IESG.
Working groups SHOULD ensure that their associated mailing list is
manageable. For example, some may try to circumvent the revocation
of their posting rights by changing email addresses; accordingly it
should be possible to restrict the new email address.
Finally, note that the scope of a PR-action deals solely with posting
rights. Consistent with the final paragraph of Section 3.2 of [1],
no action may be taken to prevent individuals from receiving messages
sent to a mailing list.
Rose Best Current Practice [Page 6]
RFC 3683 Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists March 2004
3. Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of: Brian
Carpenter, Jim Galvin, Jeff Haas, Ted Hardie, Russ Housley, Thomas
Narten, Jon Peterson, Margaret Wasserman, and Bert Wijnen.
Rose Best Current Practice [Page 7]
RFC 3683 Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists March 2004
4. Security Considerations
This memo deals with matters of process, not protocol.
A reasonable person might note that this memo describes a mechanism
to throttle active denial-of-service attacks against the consensus-
driven process used by the IETF.
Rose Best Current Practice [Page 8]
RFC 3683 Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists March 2004
5. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", BCP
25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
[2] Harris, S., "IETF Discussion List Charter", BCP 45, RFC 3005,
November 2000.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[4] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
Rose Best Current Practice [Page 9]
RFC 3683 Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists March 2004
Appendix A. Q & A
Q: Isn't a year too long?
A: No.
An initial PR-action is not undertaken lightly. It is approved
only after a period of substantive consideration and community
review. If a PR-action is approved, then this indicates that a
serious situation has arisen.
Q: Why not require one PR-action per IETF mailing list?
A: To do so would enable a prolonged series of denial-of-service
attacks.
If someone is poorly-behaved on one IETF mailing list, but well-
behaved on another, then the maintainer for the second IETF
mailing list needn't revoke posting rights. However, the more
likely scenario is that someone who behaves poorly on one IETF
mailing list is unwilling to be well-behaved on any IETF mailing
list.
Q: Should the initiation of a PR-action come from outside the IESG?
A: Informally, sure; formally, no.
Under the IETF's consensus-driven process, IESG actions are always
formally initiated by an IESG Area Director (AD). In practice,
the motivation for an IESG member to initiate an action almost
always comes from outside the IESG. For example, when a working
group (WG) reaches consensus on a document, the WG chair informs
the relevant AD that the document is ready for the AD to consider
it for a document action. In the case of this document -- an IETF
individual submission -- the author will iteratively circulate the
document for wide discussion and make revisions. At some point,
the author will contact an AD and ask for a document action to
publish this document as a Best Current Practice (BCP).
Q: Is this censorship?
A: Only if you believe in anarchy.
What is important is that the rules surrounding PR-actions exhibit
the same properties used by the rest of the consensus-based
process.
Rose Best Current Practice [Page 10]
RFC 3683 Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists March 2004
Q: C'mon! You really are a closet fascist.
A: No, I'm a libertarian.
Frankly, I would prefer that people behave reasonably and act in
good faith. Since my first involvement with the IETF (nee GADS,
circa 1983), everyone understood that reasonable behavior was a
good thing. After 20 years, I regret to inform you that this step
is inevitable.
Rose Best Current Practice [Page 11]
RFC 3683 Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists March 2004
Author's Address
Marshall T. Rose
Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
POB 255268
Sacramento, CA 95865-5268
US
Phone: +1 916 483 8878
EMail: mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us
Rose Best Current Practice [Page 12]
RFC 3683 Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists March 2004
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
described in this document or the extent to which any license
under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to
rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
to implement this standard. Please address the information to the
IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Rose Best Current Practice [Page 13]