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

Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU> Wed, 18 June 2008 18:57 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 4E6FD3A6A5A; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:57:04 -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 25D3D3A695D for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.048
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 3u+IItvoxYBd for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jade.coe.psu.ac.th (unknown [202.28.99.196]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C73253A687E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from epsilon.noi.kre.to (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jade.coe.psu.ac.th with ESMTP id m5IIuNwa026247; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:56:23 +0700 (ICT)
Received: from epsilon.noi.kre.to (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by epsilon.noi.kre.to (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m5IItt5m023278; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:55:55 +0700 (ICT)
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
In-Reply-To: <g3bkep$fjd$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <g3bkep$fjd$1@ger.gmane.org> <059901c8d132$d65df170$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110><8832006D4D21836CBE6DB469@klensin-sus.vbn.inter-touch.net><485590E2.3080107@gmal.com><p06250116c47c330c7dd0@[75.145.176.242]<4856DE3A.3090804@gmail.com><049b01c8d089$6c901ce0$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110><23618.1213785541.031305@invsysm1> <13291.1213811999@epsilon.noi.kre.to>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:55:55 +0700
Message-ID: <17192.1213815355@epsilon.noi.kre.to>
Cc: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>, 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

    Date:        Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:35:54 +0200
    From:        "Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>;
    Message-ID:  <g3bkep$fjd$1@ger.gmane.org>;

  | Figuring out what the "demonstrated will of the IETF" is
  | is the job of the IESG,

Agreed, that is part of their role.

  | and in the case of an individual
  | submission such as 2821bis it can be rather tricky.

It can be tricky in any case, I don't really think individual
submissions are that different - in either case, there's a last
call, and the results need to be evaluated.

If, in this case, the reason for the IESG's objection were something
along the lines of "there seems to be a disputed about whether the
domain names used in examples are the correct ones to use, so we
don't see consensus to publish it", that would be fine (it may or
not be debatable, but procedurally fine), and the IETF as a whole would
need to make a decision (using the IESG as arbiter).

But that is not what happened here.
 
  | Somebody *deciding* that using foo.com in 2821bis is "the
  | demonstrated will of the IETF"

That was already done for 2821, wasn't it?   It is published already
(years ago).    This is just a minor update.  Only a fool would go
making unnecessary changes to a document meant as a minor update of
an existing doc.

Further, there already was a list call on 2821 bis, wasn't there (I'm
pretty sure I remember seeing it).    I don't recall seeing any objections
lodged to the examples.

kre

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