Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

John C Klensin <> Wed, 03 July 2013 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B57A221F9DB7 for <>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 11:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.499
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YijKvFjVrjTi for <>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 11:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F070C21F9DAB for <>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 11:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1UuRW0-0002aG-W1; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 14:10:52 -0400
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 14:10:47 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Warren Kumari <>, Pete Resnick <>
Subject: Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 18:10:59 -0000

--On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumari
<> wrote:

> Thank you -- another worthwhile thing to do is look at who all
> has appealed and ask yourself "Do I really want to be part of
> this club?"

I am honored to be a member of that club.   Remembering that
appeals, as others have pointed out, a mechanism for requesting
a second look at some issue, they are an important, perhaps
vital, part of our process.  We probably don't have enough of
them.  Effectively telling people to not appeal because they
will be identified as "kooks" hurts the process model by
suppressing what might be legitimate concerns.

In addition, it is important to note that the page does _not_
list every appeal since 2002.  If one reads Section 6.5 of RFC
2026, it describes a multi-step process for appears in each of a
collection of categories.  The web page lists only those that
were escalated to full IESG review.  That is important for two

* The majority of appeals, and a larger majority of those that
are consistent with community consensus or technical
reasonableness, are resolved well before the issues involved
come to the formal attention of the full IESG.  If an issue is
appealed but discussions with WG Chairs, individuals ADs, or the
IETF Chair result in a review of the issues and a satisfactory
resolution, then that is an that is completely successful in
every respect (including minimization of IETF time) but does not
show up in the list on the web page or statistics derived from

* A few minutes of thought will probably suffice to show you
that appeals that have significant merit are far more likely to
be resolved at stages prior to full IESG review.   By contrast,
a hypothetical appeal that was wholly without merit, or even
filed with the intent of annoying the IESG, is almost certain to
reach the IESG and end up on the list, badly distorting the
actual situation.


p.s. to any IESG members who are reading this: community
understanding of the process might be enhanced by putting a note
on the appeals page that is explicit about what that list
represents, i.e., only appeals that reached full IESG review and
not all appeals.

> Other than a *very* small minority of well known and well
> respected folk the page
> is basically a handy kook reference.