Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>     However, I'm arguing that
> there is scope on this particular point for concluding that there is
> a *technical* issue (a source of confusion, i.e. a lack of clarity).

If would be fascinating to see someone attempt to defend such a claim 
seriously and with pragmatic substance, rather than detached theory.

That is, to try to prove the claim with facts.


> That may or may not be a valid conclusion. 

And that's one of the issues that is that the meat of the appeal, as I read 
it:  The serious basis for the Discuss has not been documented, nevermind 
defended.  So we can debate all sorts of hypotheses about whether their might 
or might not have been a legitimate basis for this Discuss, and we would 
thereby miss the underlying issue.


> However, one of the two
> DISCUSS comments points out that at least 3 of the domains used are
> real ones. So the issue of confusion is a real one. 

1. Where is the rule prohibiting the use of real domain names?

2. This particular spec began life 25+ years ago using those names, so we 
ought to have solid data showing that that particular document's use of those 
names is a problem.  Where is it?

3. Where is the empirical substantiation that use of a real domain name in an 
  RFC spec causes problems with the development of interoperable implementations?

4. If you want to focus on a judgement call, how about focusing on the 
judgement that keeping specification documents stable, as much as possible, 
across their life, is important?


> What I am
> saying is: these DISCUSSes are about a technical issue. They may or
> may not be reasonable, but I object to the suggestion that they are
> stylistic or editorial (which would automatically make them out of
> scope under the IESG's own document).

Like any good technical issue, I'm sure you can document the real-world 
demonstrations of this as a problem and for this document?

Mostly what you are doing, Brian, is demonstrating that one can claim that 
anything is a technical issue.


>> Even better is that application of this invented rule on a revision to
>> an established standard represents an orientation towards change that is
>> de-stabliling rather than helpful.
> 
> I don't think that changing foo.com to foo.example.com would
> destabilise the email system too much.

Perhaps you are missing the point.

I guess that's a judgement call, too.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf