Re: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10: ABNF discuss

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Thursday, 03 July, 2008 20:41 +0200 Magnus Westerlund
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> The "not discussed at all" issue is one that could open up yet
>> another whole discussion of the information the tracker gives
>> to authors, editors, mailing lists, etc., and just what the
>> expectations are of both IESG members and document shepherds.
>> Since those topics are probably as controversial as the ones
>> associated with the pending appeal, I'm going to try to avoid
>> them here and hope that, if people do want to raise them, they
>> will at least change the subject line.
> 
> I only tried to express that if one tries to resolve a discuss
> one needs
> to involve the Discuss holding AD somehow. And I have
> personally not
> heard a single beep from anyone until a week ago about this
> part of the discuss.

Understood.

Part of the problem here is similar to one that the RFC Editor
discovered and fixed some years ago. 

Because "DISCUSS" can mean, among other things:

	* I want to think about this for a while
	
	* I want to discuss it with other IESG members and find
	out what they think
	
	* I am expecting further input from the developers of
	the document

it is a little bit too easy for the third case to get lost.  It
obviously did in this case, for which I apologize.  On the other
hand, it would be, IMO, very helpful if the IESG cleaned that
situation up.

I'll let others comment on the substance of your note -- you
have probably heard enough from me.

regards,
    john