Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 17 June 2008 19:31 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 0B67E3A6A04; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:31:26 -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 EBB013A6A35 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.289
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.310, 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 T9ni3Vj2PbHf for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 218F83A6981 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1K8gu3-000EYQ-Kf; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:31:40 -0400
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:31:35 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>, Brian Dickson <briand@ca.afilias.info>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Message-ID: <5F8E4A149B8E771FC608EAFB@klensin-asus.vbn.inter-touch.net>
In-Reply-To: <87hcbse7du.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org>
References: <8832006D4D21836CBE6DB469@klensin-asus.vbn.inter-touch.net> <485590E2.3080107@gmail.com> <p06250116c47c330c7dd0@[75.145.176.242]> <4856DE3A.3090804@gmail.com> <g36r20$bgq$1@ger.gmane.org> <48575B7E.9030003@ca.afilias.info> <87hcbse7du.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>, 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
--On Tuesday, 17 June, 2008 11:30 +0200 Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> wrote: > Brian Dickson <briand@ca.afilias.info> writes: > >> Here's my suggestion: >> >> List 2606 in the informative references, and footnote the >> examples used to indicate >> that they are "grandfathered" non-2606 examples. >> >> So, in text that previously read "not-example.com", it might >> read "not-example.com [*]", >> with the references section having "[*] Note - non-RFC2606 >> examples used. Please read RFC2606." >> >> Something along those lines, should hopefully be enough to >> keep both sides happy, and resolve the DISCUSS, >> and hopefully both set a suitable precedent *and* make moot >> the appeal. > > I think this sounds like a good compromise, and it does > improve the document quality IMHO. John, would this be an > acceptable addition to the document? Simon, I've responded to Brian off-list and continue in my determination to not engage in a debate about the appeal itself: under the procedures as I read them and as they have been applied in the past, the IESG will decide however it decides. However, unless they make it one by composing a statement or appeal response and issuing a Last Call on it (I believe they have the right to do that, but certainly not any obligation, and it would be unprecedented), the appeal itself is neither a community popularity contest nor a consensus call. Remember that 2026 does not even require that appeals be made public when they are submitted. Without endorsing them (the authors speak for themselves and have written clearly), you might want to re-read any of several recent notes and the appeal text: the core issue that motivated the appeal was not whether or not these examples were to be changed. Changing the examples (or not) has _never_ been the core question. If it were, I would have included a discussion of compromise positions and counter-suggestions that had already been offered. Even with such a discussion, the appeal text would have been much shorter. The core issue has to do with how the IESG manages document reviews, whether the community likes late surprises that could easily be avoided, how rules are formulated and applied in the IETF, how AD judgments relate to consensus in the IETF Community or applicable subgroups, and so on. As to Brian's suggestion, please consider the following, derived from RFC3501 and hypothesize that, at some point, an RFC 2606bis might be created (and go through the consensus process to BCP) that offers special reserved names for newsgroups or mailing lists as well as domain names (many of the arguments offered for using only reserved domain names, including "rude to the owners", would probably apply to newsgroups and other sorts of network entities as well) and that included a form of Brian's suggestion as normative. RFC3501 now includes: > Example: C: A002 LSUB "#news." "comp.mail.*" > S: * LSUB () "." #news.comp.mail.mime > S: * LSUB () "." #news.comp.mail.misc > S: A002 OK LSUB completed Now, suppose, per Brian's suggestion, that were changed to Example: C: A002 LSUB "#news." "comp.mail.*" * S: * LSUB () "." #news.comp.mail.mime S: * LSUB () "." #news.comp.mail.misc S: A002 OK LSUB completed or Example: C: A002 LSUB "#news." "comp.mail.*" [Foobar] S: * LSUB () "." #news.comp.mail.mime S: * LSUB () "." #news.comp.mail.misc S: A002 OK LSUB completed or Example: C: A002 LSUB "#news." "comp.mail.*" [1] S: * LSUB () "." #news.comp.mail.mime S: * LSUB () "." #news.comp.mail.misc S: A002 OK LSUB completed any of which would be consistent with what I interpret as the spirit of Brian's suggestion, with the "*", "[Foobar]", or "[1]" being anchors for a reference or footnote. Now _that_, folks, is confusing, since a reasonable reader might have trouble figuring out whether the footnote/reference anchor was part of the IMAP syntax and example or not. It would be so confusing that I'd argue that it involved a substantive issue, rather than an editorial/stylistic one as Brian Carpenter suggests sometimes occurs. I'd expect people to notice it during Last Call and complain, and I'd think an AD would be entirely justified in asking hard questions and forcing discussions. Whether the examples in 2821bis are like that case simply because they fail to use 2606 names is something that you should judge for yourselves. But, because of possibilities that the examples above illustrate, be careful what you wish for. john _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-kle… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Lakshminath Dondeti
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Eric Gray
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Pete Resnick
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Tony Hansen
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Robert Elz
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… TSG
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… TSG
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Brian Dickson
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Simon Josefsson
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… eburger
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… David Kessens
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Fred Baker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Fred Baker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Lakshminath Dondeti
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Debbie Garside
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Robert Elz
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Spencer Dawkins
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Pete Resnick
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Eliot Lear
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… TSG
- example TLH (was: Appeal against IESG blocking DI… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… LB
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Simon Josefsson
- Limits of RFC 2606 (Was: Appeal against IESG bloc… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Bob Hinden
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Debbie Garside
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Debbie Garside
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Robert Elz
- Re: Limits of RFC 2606 Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Robert Elz
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Cridland
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Cridland
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Ralph Droms
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Spencer Dawkins
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Cridland
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Ned Freed
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Debbie Garside
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Ted Hardie
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Pete Resnick
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Eliot Lear
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Ted Hardie
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Robert Elz
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… SM
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Debbie Garside
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Debbie Garside
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Randy Presuhn
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John Levine
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Cridland
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Pete Resnick
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Bernard Aboba
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Bernard Aboba
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Julian Reschke
- Measuring IETF and IESG trends (Was: Re: Appeal a… Jari Arkko
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends (Was: Re: Appe… Marshall Eubanks
- Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re:… Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Melinda Shore
- RE: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Ross Callon
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Jari Arkko
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … John C Klensin
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… SM
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … John C Klensin
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … SM
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends Frank Ellermann
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends Paul Hoffman
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … SM
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Russ Housley
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Jari Arkko
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Ted Hardie
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Jari Arkko
- RE: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Romascanu, Dan (Dan)