Re: More new text for 2821bis (was: Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13-Jun-2008)

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,
At 23:51 08-07-2008, John C Klensin wrote:
>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.

Weighing only the examples against the rest of the specifications to 
determine which is less harmful seems odd.  It's not like an 
appropriate reuse of "free" bits.

>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.

By reviewing the document, the IESG is being asked to apply its 
technical judgement in determining the fitness and suitability of the 
specifications.  The term "technical" can be quite subjective in some 
circumstances as we have seen with the 2606 discussion on 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.

At the moment, I cannot find any text from RFC 2026 which covers the 
area of disagreement.    RFC 3932 (BCP 92) discusses procedures and 
has some text about IESG notes.

Regards,
-sm