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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I think one can make a case that in some documents, use of non-RFC2606
> names as examples is a purely stylistic matter, and that in others,
> it would potentially cause technical confusion. I'm not asserting which
> applies to 2821bis, but I do assert that there is scope here for
> a judgement call and therefore the inconsistency is understandable.


Actually, Brian, scope is exactly what this judgment call is out of.

The underlying question is whether rules matter in the IETF or whether the 
IETF is subject to whatever ADs feel like declaring at the moment.

If rules do matter, then the IESG needs to follow them.  In very concrete 
terms, the IESG needs to be constrained it its application of a Discuss to 
matters of serious import and to document the basis for an application of a 
Discuss.

The current case has an AD asserting a Discuss by claiming a rule that does 
not exist.  That's not judgment call, that's invention.

Even better is that application of this invented rule on a revision to an 
established standard represents an orientation towards change that is 
de-stabliling rather than helpful.

With that combination, you can't get much more out of scope.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf