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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Pete,
> I first want to re-iterate what Eric posted earlier: Please read the
> appeal. The *very minor* issue of the appeal is whether or not to use
> 2606 names. It is the use of the DISCUSS in this case that is at
> issue. That said:
>    

I am uncomfortable ham-stringing the IESG (or having them do it to 
themselves) by requiring them to be excessively prescriptive about when 
they can and cannot use a DISCUSS.  It should be good enough for them to 
state their reasoning behind it, with the understanding that if someone 
doesn't like the reasoning they can appeal to the IAB.  If enough people 
disagree with the person or persons making the DISCUSS we have a recall 
function at our disposal.

I happen to tepidly agree with the DISCUSS on the grounds that Marshall 
Eubanks cited, but only tepidly because the likelihood of injury in this 
case is vanishingly small.  That having been said, the reason I agree is 
that we should strive to improve our documents over time.  SMTP should 
not be an exception but instead an example.(.com ;-).

Eliot

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf