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

Russ Housley <> Mon, 23 June 2008 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 584183A6991; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EECB3A69E1 for <>; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.682
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.682 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.917, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l5JD-a9PqQ6S for <>; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:51:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 419ED3A694C for <>; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:51:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 9705 invoked by uid 0); 23 Jun 2008 19:51:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by with SMTP; 23 Jun 2008 19:51:20 -0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:19:26 -0400
From: Russ Housley <>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <p06250116c47c330c7dd0@[]> <> <C122F91B-59B0-49AC-ABBC-6752217C4E47@NOKIA.COM> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"


>>>If you feel that group was rogue, please explain.  If you do not, 
>>>what is the basis for your view that its considerations were 
>>>sufficiently faulty to warrant being overridden?
>>Prior to the appeal, this aspect of John's rationale was not 
>>raised.  It was not raised by John, the document PROTO shepherd, or 
>>the IESG member sponsoring the document.
>Again, I hope we do not find ourselves in a he said/no he didn't 
>exchange.  I'll
>merely suggest that had the Discuss been immediately taken to the 
>public mailing
>list, it seems pretty likely that salient details would quickly have been put

This is an individual submission, not a WG document.  So, there is no 
charter that lists the appropriate mail list for such a 
discussion.  That said, John did take the issue to a mail list.  I 
know this because someone forward his posting to me.  John did not CC 
me on the posting, which I interpret as not seeking dialogue at that point.


IETF mailing list