Re: More new text for 2821bis

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

Adding an IESG note to a standards-track RFC is longstanding practice as 
a way for IESG members to "hold their noses" and feel better about 
approving a document which they dislike.  Less frequently, it could also 
be used as a way to document irreconcilable differences between the 
document author/editor/wg and IESG while still letting the document move 
forward.  But mostly I think it was a way for IESG members to "feel 
better" about approving a document when there was something they didn't 
like and they were under pressure (usually from other IESG members) to 
approve it anyway.

I think they started using it around the time I was on IESG (1996-2000) 
- at least it seemed to become increasingly common during that time).  I 
don't know if the practice is documented anywhere - it was (IIRC) an 
informal agreement between IESG and the RFC Editor.

Such notes have been useful when there were important technical 
considerations that a WG refused to address.  But IMHO they have also 
frequently been used for fairly petty concerns, as in this case.

Keith

John C Klensin wrote:
> 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
> 
>