More new text for 2821bis (was: Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13-Jun-2008)
John C Klensin <john+smtp@jck.com> Wed, 09 July 2008 06:51 UTC
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m696pO29031045 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:51:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id m696pOEV031044; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:51:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m696pMVp031036 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:51:23 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from john+smtp@jck.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1KGTWL-000BzQ-UK for ietf-smtp@imc.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2008 02:51:22 -0400
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 02:51:20 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john+smtp@jck.com>
To: ietf-smtp@imc.org
Subject: More new text for 2821bis (was: Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13-Jun-2008)
Message-ID: <BB5CD720FD8C6AF403D37453@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <487368EA.1010500@isode.com>
References: <20080707170001.ECC4A28C0F7@core3.amsl.com> <48729A1B.7030104@att.com> <0dy8Zj+lByglnd12S+8PFA.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> <487368EA.1010500@isode.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-smtp.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Folks, This is the "surprise" referred to in one of my earlier notes. Just so everyone knows, the appeal response says, in part... "The IESG came to consensus that the use of non-example domain names should not prevent publication of RFC2821bis, even though the IESG finds this practice can cause harm. The arguments made in public list discussion of the appeal have been a factor in the IESG being able to come to consensus on this point." I thought that wording was a little odd when I first read it but, other than noting that the IESG "finding" of harm did not appear to be consistent with community consensus, didn't pay a lot of attention to it. However, while it is apparently not final and still has not appeared in the tracker (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-klensin-rfc2821bis/), the apparent intent of the IESG, reflected in the ballot at https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ballot/2471/, is to add an IESG note to the front of the document that reads: "The IESG notes the use of several non-example domains (see RFC2606) in examples in this document. These domains appear in the same examples in RFC2821. RFC2821 will continue to exist although its status will be marked as obsoleted by this document. Thus, the IESG estimates that use of these particular examples in a revision to RFC2821 causes less harm than the good done by publishing this revision." I presume that this text has been signed off on by all of those listed as "Yes" or "No-Objection" on the ballot and note that their numbers are sufficient to have a Protocol Action notice issued. I'm going to avoid making editorial comments on that text at this time. I do note, however, that this sort of note has never before been applied to a document that does not use 2606 names. I also note that the IESG has made no attempt to engage in a dialog on the subject of whether a note or this sort should be added, or about what it should contain with either this list or the IETF list. I can also find no authority, in RFC 2026 or elsewhere, for the IESG adding text to a Standards-track document without such consultation. In particular, while Section 6.1.2 of RFC 2026 contains an extended discussion of the IESG changing categories, forming WGs, etc., it appears clear that the IESG is to "approve or disapprove", not to start adding text reflecting its own observations, observations that may or may not represent community consensus. Advice or instructions welcome. john
- Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13-Jun… IESG Secretary
- Re: More new text for 2821bis SM
- Re: More new text for 2821bis (was: Re: Response … ned+ietf-smtp
- Re: More new text for 2821bis (was: Re: Response … Chris Newman
- Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13… Chris Newman
- Re: More new text for 2821bis (was: Re: Response … John C Klensin
- Re: More new text for 2821bis (was: Re: Response … SM
- Re: More new text for 2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: More new text for 2821bis (was: Re: Response … John C Klensin
- Re: More new text for 2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: More new text for 2821bis (was: Re: Response … John C Klensin
- Re: More new text for 2821bis (was: Re: Response … John Leslie
- Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13… Tony Finch
- Re: More new text for 2821bis (was: Re: Response … SM
- Re: More new text for 2821bis (was: Re: Response … Pete Resnick
- Re: More new text for 2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: More new text for 2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: More new text for 2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: More new text for 2821bis Frank Ellermann
- More new text for 2821bis (was: Re: Response to a… John C Klensin
- Re: IESG response fixes for 2821bis SM
- Re: IESG response fixes for 2821bis Tony Hansen
- Re: borderline offtopic about examples Frank Ellermann
- Re: borderline offtopic about examples SM
- Re: borderline offtopic about examples Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13… Cyrus Daboo
- Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13… Francesco Gennai
- Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13… Francesco Gennai
- Re: IESG response fixes for 2821bis Tony Hansen
- Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13… John Leslie
- Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13… Keith Moore
- Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: borderline offtopic about examples Frank Ellermann
- Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13… Steve Atkins
- Re: IESG response fixes for 2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: borderline offtopic about examples John C Klensin
- Re: IESG response fixes for 2821bis John C Klensin
- borderline offtopic about examples Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: IESG response fixes for 2821bis Magnus Westerlund
- Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13… Hector Santos
- Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: IESG response fixes for 2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13… SM
- IESG response fixes for 2821bis Tony Hansen
- Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13… Keld Jørn Simonsen
- Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13… Dave Crocker
- Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13… ned+ietf-smtp
- Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13… Jim Fenton
- Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13… Tony Hansen