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

David Kessens <> Tue, 17 June 2008 13:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05ABE3A68F5; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B095A3A68F5; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:03:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NwgueW3Yxbr3; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBCC63A68E3; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id m5HD3R4b018757; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:03:42 +0300
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:03:09 +0300
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([]) by over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:03:08 +0300
Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain []) by localhost.localdomain (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m5HD30wo003004; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:03:00 -0700
Received: (from david@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.14.2/8.14.1/Submit) id m5HD2uvm003003; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:02:56 -0700
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:02:56 -0700
From: David Kessens <>
To: Lakshminath Dondeti <>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jun 2008 13:03:08.0778 (UTC) FILETIME=[7D5B44A0:01C8D07A]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
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-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:01:17PM -0700, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
> I have also been disappointed by the IESG not once invoking the override 
> procedures even when a DISCUSS is clearly inappropriate.

For the record, during my time in the IESG, we have had at least two
cases where override procedures were requested. One vote was requested
by me to clear a document that I was the shepherd for that got stuck
in the IESG for a very long period and where the DISCUSSing AD was not
responsive while trying to resolve a DISCUSS.

In another case, I asked the shepherding AD to request an override vote
as I had fundamental issues with a document that was not likely to be
resolved in a timely matter due to the nature of my problems with the
document. Therefore, instead of me holding a DISCUSS forever and
leaving the document in limbo, I proposed that an override vote could
help us to force a decision early.

If my memory serves me correctly, we didn't have to do a formal
override vote in both cases as the request of an override vote was
enough to get the first case moving, while in the second case I
decided that an informal strawpoll was enough to decide that I didn't
have enough support for my opinion so I switched to an ABSTAIN.

David Kessens
IETF mailing list