RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 16 June 2008 22:39 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8B2F3A690F; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A78E3A690F; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.134
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.465, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ndLXQ5609lyv; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69E653A686C; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1K8NMj-0006fS-Az; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:39:57 -0400
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:09:23 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Message-ID: <9C6606488F857EEA3152C952@7AD4D3FB4841A5E367CCF211>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Eric, Brian, and others... Since this has turned into a general discussion about DISCUSS, etc., a few comments. With regard to the specific appeal, everyone should remember that, under our procedures, the focus of an appeal in the first instance is "please reconsider this and decide whether you really want to do it". I still hope that model works and that the IESG will reconsider, remove the DISCUSS, and clear up some of what, IMO, is the mess that seems to surround it. To me, that mess includes (almost independent of the particular document or appeal): (1) The tracker categories are a matter of IESG decisions, not of anything on which the community has ever reached consensus or been asked to do so (something I actually consider a good thing). The IESG can change them as needed. If the current state of the tools is such that they cannot be changed, then I believe that (i) the IESG should be having a discussion with the IAOC, the Secretariat, and/or the Tools team as needed. One of those groups should report back to the community with a plan. (ii) the IESG consists entirely of very smart people with years of experience in the industry. Even with limitations imposed by the tools, I think they could figure out contentions to make positions absolutely clear to each other and to the community. If we have to learn a secret language (e.g., "discuss discuss") in order to understand the status of a document, and learn it without a dictionary or glossary, then I think the IETF is in trouble. If, as I assume, the absence of that glossary is either an oversight or a too-low priority, I hope that the IETF will take this discussion as an indication that it is time to increase the priority. The only other possibility I can see is that the IESG is deliberately trying to confuse the community. I don't believe that is happening but, if it were, it is time for people to either grow up or start stepping down. (2) IMO, the argument that the choice of names in an example is a technical clarification matter, even as a judgment call, is _extremely_ hard to justify. I basically support 2606. I think it is generally a bad idea for us to use names that others have registered and that it is a bad idea for others to register names that we are using. I would hope that no editor would use color.example.com and colour.example.com in the same document in a way that would leave the reader wondering whether the difference was intended to make a point or was an editorial error. And I would expect that such examples would be swiftly corrected if they were pointed out and were, in fact, errors. Even that is an editorial issue, not a substantive technical one. There could be cases where it would interfere with clarity enough to justify a judgment call to hold the document until it was fixed. But those cases would be rare and would deserve explicit justification. As others have pointed out, there has been no justification in this case other than "the IESG has been enforcing 2026 names consistently for at least five years"). Again, until we start using IDNs in examples (where I can imagine some exceptions), all of those are issues of editorial style and presentation, not technical substance. And, until and unless some descendant of Frank Ellerman's recent draft is approved, we have no reserved IDN names or guidance anyway. (3) I believe that it would be perfectly reasonable for the IESG to decide to require the 2606 names, or to require them unless justification were explicitly provided and a waiver requested and granted. If they want to do that, they should modify the ID Checklist ("Nits") to say so and adjust the DISCUSS Criteria as needed to indicate that use of other names is blocking, even for revisions of documents that used other names. I would hope that they would ask for community comment and establish consensus before reissuing those documents with these provisions, but, if they didn't, the posting of the documents would make an appeal possible. However, if there is one topic in the IETF's discussions in the last several years about procedures on which there is clear consensus, it is that the community doesn't like unnecessary late surprises and considers them destructive. Regardless of how the IESG (or anyone else) feels about the use or non-use of 2606 names, having a DISCUSS on this topic show up long after Last Call, when much of the IESG has signed off on the document, and with no warning in the various guideline, checklist, and criteria documents is one of the very worst examples of such a surprise. This is not a technical issue associated with a disagreement about a protocol specification in which the IESG has to make a judgment call. It is an editorial/procedural matter that is easily documented, especially if the IESG has really applied the criterion to its evaluation of every document it has touched in the last five years. Finally, Eric wrote... > Either DISCUSS means what it implies (maybe we add some > separate status for BLOCK), or we change the state name to an > intentionally more ambiguous name (like HOLD, or PENDING). I believe that there is no excuse for ambiguous categories in this sort of area and that they are a disservice to the community and the process. So I want to see less ambiguity, not more. and kre wrote... > If the example domain names were really an issue to anyone, > that would have been raised during last call. At that point, > whether or not rough consensus existed to continue with the > doc as it was could have been judged. Yes, exactly. And the fact that this was discussed, and an explicit decision reached, months before Last Call makes the situation even worse, IMO. best regards, john _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-kle… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Lakshminath Dondeti
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Eric Gray
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Pete Resnick
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Tony Hansen
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Robert Elz
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… TSG
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… TSG
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Brian Dickson
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Simon Josefsson
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… eburger
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… David Kessens
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Fred Baker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Fred Baker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Lakshminath Dondeti
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Debbie Garside
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Robert Elz
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Spencer Dawkins
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Pete Resnick
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Eliot Lear
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… TSG
- example TLH (was: Appeal against IESG blocking DI… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… LB
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Simon Josefsson
- Limits of RFC 2606 (Was: Appeal against IESG bloc… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Bob Hinden
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Debbie Garside
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Debbie Garside
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Robert Elz
- Re: Limits of RFC 2606 Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Robert Elz
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Cridland
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Cridland
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Ralph Droms
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Spencer Dawkins
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Cridland
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Ned Freed
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Debbie Garside
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Ted Hardie
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Pete Resnick
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Eliot Lear
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Ted Hardie
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Robert Elz
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… SM
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Debbie Garside
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Debbie Garside
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Randy Presuhn
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John Levine
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Cridland
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Pete Resnick
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Bernard Aboba
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Bernard Aboba
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Julian Reschke
- Measuring IETF and IESG trends (Was: Re: Appeal a… Jari Arkko
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends (Was: Re: Appe… Marshall Eubanks
- Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re:… Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Melinda Shore
- RE: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Ross Callon
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Jari Arkko
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … John C Klensin
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… SM
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … John C Klensin
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … SM
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends Frank Ellermann
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends Paul Hoffman
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … SM
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Russ Housley
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Jari Arkko
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Ted Hardie
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Jari Arkko
- RE: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Romascanu, Dan (Dan)