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

Dave Crocker <> Thu, 26 June 2008 09:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B58F28C136; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69DD928C138; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.702
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12=1.897]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EOQKNXgCMGZc; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7146]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41EB628C108; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5ND7KR0025137 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:07:25 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:08:51 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russ Housley <>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
References: <> <> <p06250116c47c330c7dd0@[]> <> <C122F91B-59B0-49AC-ABBC-6752217C4E47@NOKIA.COM> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"

Russ Housley wrote:
> This is an individual submission, not a WG document.  So, there is no 
> charter that lists the appropriate mail list for such a discussion.  
> That said, John did take the issue to a mail list.  I know this because 
> someone forward his posting to me.  John did not CC me on the posting, 
> which I interpret as not seeking dialogue at that point.


Only because it got shot down so quickly and soundly, I'll indulge in some sour 
grapes:  Once upon a time, I suggested that all I-D's be required to specify a 
discussion venue.

What we have here, now, is an example of why that should be a requirement: An 
I-D is for the purpose of discussion. We need to facilitate it's happening.

For rfc2821bis, there was, in fact, an established discussion venue, and it 
long-standing and quite well known to the email community, namely

It could only have helped for that venue to have been known to others, 
particularly if folks wanted to pursue a "community" discussion about a concern 
with the draft.

And especially since rfc2821bis development was, in fact, pursued with exactly 
the same rough consensus process a formally-chartered chartered working group.

But your last sentence probably highlights a basic structural disconnect -- for 
want of a better term -- that we ought to think about fixing:  when an 
individual submission is actually the result of a group process, the group ought 
to be identified and direct dialogue with the group ought to take place, not 
depending upon mediation by an author or proto-shepherd.



   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
IETF mailing list