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

LB <> Tue, 17 June 2008 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 850B03A6994; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 320DE3A6994 for <>; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 549Q7P7yFeKL for <>; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AC803A695B for <>; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x19so2059676pyg.24 for <>; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=i8PGAQNswIlW3d4GK7d51nMGT6pnsTrDpgWDGiwKX6Y=; b=rR5ix7ioVv7zvXtHDPd6uC+eVfTr2hZvSSJAREEANkkxBDnojDD17vj7N9hLbmBuws PY+PYYDlLCZMHJFAQpmdJ9jThPqj1JtMP0/G0MO8i53uSMDJCrS3+0rt7oSVsnNhX9Lp m+SIzvgd2+tDUKcz1VLgsm4ysRVmXd2xR4Tdw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=UaoKK4ymiJA4llTx1ZjjL8AsB77O9rESIydos4BSNUzhYy3GGn9K3/FayBvT4Jr6rO tWOb4PwicZsJcl/xA5AXJCDCVCtfdozpxwXtNpMEgT/7N3VsFBwKqKrG4vqc5cs4VcrL ThHEdQVF/yx9Szp+WIgNbPV+x1WAKsuutn9L0=
Received: by with SMTP id w12mr8641679wac.210.1213736982027; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:09:41 +0200
From: LB <>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <> <> <p06250116c47c330c7dd0@> <> <049b01c8d089$6c901ce0$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110> <> <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Colleagues,
I'm reading the proceedings of the IETF for the past few months. They
surprise me very much. I thought that the IETF was a serious
institution seriously publishing serious standards. I realized that
his organization is not made for that and I wonder how it can publish
something serious : I believe that the Dratf John is serious, but it
should not be a new document for us @large to read. It should be an
update of SMTP Page in the IETF Internet reference wiki.

I also read in detail the appeal of John Klensin. Most of the things
he asks seem obvious. And yet he's losing time to document them, and
many intelligent minds waste time on it, while the appeal relates
solely to the IESG. The real debate will be after the IESG response
and before a possible appeal to the IAB. Why not to wait for it. Or is
this some kind of pressure ?  If I understood correctly, this appeal
is not asking to IESG judge, but to document its defence.

Would not it be easier to create a WG-IETF, which would be mandated to
rebuild a IETF for today where a method, procedures, a logic of work
would be automated, with human decision points well documented? This
would allow the brains of engineers to worry about the Internet and
its users, rather than about internal disputes and the IESG? The
appeal would then simply concern the review of the three lines
defining the DISCUSS decision point in the IESG page.

My idea is it so  stupid?
IETF mailing list