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

Pete Resnick <> Mon, 16 June 2008 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C4833A690A; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E57063A68CF; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u7f0z9UkaUQN; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE1633A683F; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.7); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:20:57 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: (Unverified)
Message-Id: <p06250116c47c330c7dd0@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
User-Agent: Eudora 6.2.5b1(Macintosh)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:20:44 -0500
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
From: Pete Resnick <>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Cc: John C Klensin <>,,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 6/16/08 at 10:00 AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>I think one can make a case that in some documents, use of 
>non-RFC2606 names as examples is a purely stylistic matter, and that 
>in others, it would potentially cause technical confusion.

Please make that case if you would, because the example you give:

>In the evaluation record for what became RFC4343 
>( we find:
>"Editorial issues:
>  - the document uses a number of
>    addresses/names, but in this case this seems justifiable"
>In other words this *was* a judgement call.

...quite specifically said it was an "Editorial issue". Please 
explain the circumstance in which it would not be an editorial issue.

Of course, the ballot in this particular case 
<> makes no claims 
about "technical confusion". I assume that when no "technical 
confusion" exists, you *would* consider such things "an editorial 
issue"? (A misplaced comma or the use of the passive *may* cause 
"technical confusion", but unless this is called out, the assumption 
is always that such things are "editorial issues".)

Pete Resnick <>
Qualcomm Incorporated
IETF mailing list