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

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Fri, 20 June 2008 19:05 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 1A0413A68FA; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:05:34 -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 805FB3A68FA for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 ct3qpeDk+5Oi for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:05:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 307AB3A6807 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:05:31 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=qa4d31pu2JZmXJ1fLvyxgDe4cSXcVm4CY3C6MOIphNqGNsBStN18Cy4tAfx8KyYf; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [68.164.83.217] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>) id 1K9lvQ-0007Jg-Ep for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:05:32 -0400
Message-ID: <002201c8d308$c6d7f520$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <8832006D4D21836CBE6DB469@klensin-us.vbn.inter-touch.net><485590E2.3080107@gmalcom><p06250116c47c330c7dd0@[75.145.176.242]<4856DE3A.3090804@gmail.com><049b01c8d089$6c901ce0$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110><23618.1213785541.031305@invsysm1><059901c8d132$d65df170$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110><23618.1213788490.265871@invsysm1><069801c8d185$56f8a350$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110><939E706761CC64A67D89C422@p3.JCK.COM> <07b701c8d23d$e27fe650$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:06:41 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888a63b7957ab9b23b33913ce8e51beff9c55538c1100873e5d350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 68.164.83.217
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

Hi -

> From: "Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
> To: "'John C Klensin'" <john-ietf@jck.com>om>; "'Dave Cridland'" <dave@cridland.net>
> Cc: "'Pete Resnick'" <presnick@qualcomm.com>om>; <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; <ietf@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 11:54 AM
> Subject: RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
...
> Sorry but we have to agree to differ on this.  Nothing personal but probably
> due to my ISO experience, I am more for going with standards rather than
> finding ways around them with MAYs and SHOULDs.  If there is a
> recommendation within a standard IMHO it should be followed.  This is just
> my humble opinion - you are welcome to yours.
...
> Wrt the author's intention for publishing BCP32, it is irrelevant unless
> documented within the BCP itself.  We cannot go back to the author for each
> BCP or RFC and ask what was the intended use.  The document, as with any
> standard, has to stand alone.
...

Both these arguments get back to the question of the applicability of
a standard or BCP.  Although we are sometimes rather clear on the
scope of applicability for a particular specification, more often things
are more or less deliberately left open ended.  Whether it makes
sense to use SNMPv3 as a file transfer protocol (as in RFC 2592)
is left to the user's judgement.  The existence of a potentially applicable
BCP or standard doesn't imply that it MUST be used - the WG needs to
investigate it, and then make the engineering decision whether
that specification is the right tool for the job at hand.

Randy

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