IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> Mon, 16 June 2008 15:30 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 4DAC73A6883; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:30:55 -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 4D9D93A677C; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.642
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.334, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 OQRHoWZTkS3o; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 648A33A6883; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1213630275!35637246!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141]
Received: (qmail 10540 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2008 15:31:15 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-9.tower-120.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 16 Jun 2008 15:31:15 -0000
Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m5GFVEqT015051; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:31:15 -0700
Received: from klph001.kcdc.att.com (klph001.kcdc.att.com [135.188.3.11]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m5GFV8Pj014987; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:31:09 -0700
Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m5GFV82U021528; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:31:08 -0500
Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m5GFV3wK020814; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:31:05 -0500
Received: from [135.210.96.163] (unknown[135.210.96.163](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20080616153103gw100l7obae> (Authid: tony); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:31:03 +0000
Message-ID: <48568784.2000808@att.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:32:20 -0400
From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
References: <8832006D4D21836CBE6DB469@klensin-asus.vbn.inter-touch.net> <485590E2.3080107@gmail.com> <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF033D3D91@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF033D3D91@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
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

+1. Does "this is a discuss discuss question" mean that "I just want to 
discuss this, it's a nit, don't worry" or does it mean "we ABSOLUTELY 
MUST DISCUSS this and nothing's moving until we do!" Without other 
context, you don't know.

	Tony Hansen
	tony@att.com

Eric Gray wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> 	As a matter of personal preference, I would very much 
> prefer not to see process constructions that require repeated
> use of the status in order to disambiguate the meaning of the
> status.  In other words, having to clarify that a DISCUSS is 
> (really) a discuss (and presumably not something else) is not
> the way to clear things up - not even "clear enough."
> 
> 	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 strongly agree with John's suggestion that ADs should clearly
>> distinguish a comment where they really want discussion from
>> something that they view as a sticking point. One of the cleared
>> DISCUSSes on 2821bis starts thus: "This is a discuss discuss
>> question....". Is that clear enough?

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email