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

sob@harvard.edu (Scott O. Bradner) Tue, 17 June 2008 19:27 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 345803A6B65; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:27:16 -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 F337B3A6B65; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 rRM9AlLGI8Hb; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A853A6B79; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 02F95B538C0; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:20:17 -0400 (EDT)
To: iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Message-Id: <20080617192018.02F95B538C0@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:20:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: sob@harvard.edu (Scott O. Bradner)
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

if indeed RFC 2606 (a.k.a, BCP 32) said "all domain names in 
RFCs MUST use one of the following bases" then a blocking DISCUSS 
by an IESG member would be a reasonable thing.  RFC 2606 does not 
say that and, thus, a blocking DISCUSS is not reasonable

if the IESG had posted a set of rules that said the same thing 
and asked for community comment and the comunity consensus supported 
the rules then a blocking DISCUSS by an IESG member would be a 
reasonable thing. But no such rules were posted and no such comunity 
consensus was shown. (Actually, I whoud hope that comunity consensus
woud be against the idea of the IESG doing any such thing since 
such things should be left to normal IETF process rather 
that to management from the top.)

Scott

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