MODeration PrOceDures R. Sayre
Internet-Draft 22 April 2025
Intended status: Best Current Practice
Expires: 24 October 2025
Automated Summaries of IETF Contributions
draft-sayre-modpod-summary-01
Abstract
Automated summaries of IETF contributions are permissible
contributions.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The latest revision of this draft can be found at
https://sayrer.github.io/summary/draft-sayre-modpod-summary.html.
Status information for this document may be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sayre-modpod-summary/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the MODeration PrOceDures
mailing list (mailto:mod-discuss@ietf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mod-discuss/. Subscribe at
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mod-discuss/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/sayrer/summary.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 24 October 2025.
Sayre Expires 24 October 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ASIC April 2025
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. Introduction
Automated summaries of IETF contributions are often useful.
Some examples include mailing list digests, summaries of posting
volume, and data concerning version control traffic.
2. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Policy
IETF participants often devise new ways of presenting IETF
contribution data.
If an automated summary becomes critical to an IETF effort, it should
be transferred to the IETF Tools team. When there is rough consensus
and running code showing that a summary is regularly useful, it must
be transferred away from an individual.
Sayre Expires 24 October 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ASIC April 2025
If there is no consensus that a summary is useful, it should not be
regularly sent.
4. Security Considerations
IETF procedures cannot depend on the resources of an individual.
When a summary becomes important enough for participants to object to
its absence, as a matter of rough consensus, it must be transitioned
to IETF infrastructure.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
6. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
Author's Address
Robert Sayre
Email: sayrer@gmail.com
Sayre Expires 24 October 2025 [Page 3]