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

Pete Resnick <> Thu, 19 June 2008 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E5BA3A684C; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 998FB3A6816; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kDeeiQdevUNU; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6BFA3A680C; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.7); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:22:24 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06250107c4805f15a3c9@[]>
In-Reply-To: <07b701c8d23d$e27fe650$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110>
References: <> <485590E2.3080107@gmalcom> <p06250116c47c330c7dd0@[]<> <049b01c8d089$6c901ce0$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110> <23618.1213785541.031305@invsysm1> <059901c8d132$d65df170$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110> <23618.1213788490.265871@invsysm1> <069801c8d185$56f8a350$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110> <939E706761CC64A67D89C422@p3.JCK.COM> <07b701c8d23d$e27fe650$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110>
User-Agent: Eudora 6.2.5b1(Macintosh)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:22:19 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <>
Subject: RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Cc: 'John C Klensin' <>,,
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"

On 6/19/08 at 7:54 PM +0100, Debbie Garside wrote:

>I am more for going with standards rather than finding ways around 
>them with MAYs and SHOULDs.  If there is a recommendation within a 
>standard IMHO it should be followed.
>I don't see what the problem is with following BCP's

Please identify ANYWHERE in this BCP (RFC 2606) that says that 
anybody MUST, SHOULD, ought to, might want to think about, or 
otherwise really really needs to, use these domain names.

Anywhere. Please quote text.

Your repeated statements that you think there is something in that 
BCP that "should be followed" indicate that you have not read the BCP.

The BCP registers names so that they can be used if one wants to. It 
does not say that they must be used in RFCs. It does not even 
recommend their use. It only registers the names.

Perhaps the ISO is different and they don't actually say what they 
mean when they write a document. That has not been my experience 
reading ISO documents, but perhaps it's because I work in the IETF.

Pete Resnick <>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
IETF mailing list