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

"Spencer Dawkins" <> Wed, 25 June 2008 12:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E80D3A6A8F; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B41D3A6A8F for <>; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.166
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.434, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FyBYsR6cNjmK for <>; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FCED3A69EC for <>; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s73602 ( []) by (node=mrus1) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKpCa-1KBUQn0jRT-000070; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:49:02 -0400
Message-ID: <028601c8d6c1$f1a53f30$>
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <>
To: <>
References: <> <> <p06250116c47c330c7dd0@[]> <> <C122F91B-59B0-49AC-ABBC-6752217C4E47@NOKIA.COM> <> <> <> <p06240601c480518c107f@[]> <><> <>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:49:43 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/TvcX873Q3LsXVM9nvyZDnTvW7ljc0X2H2Wo3 1lHKQ9V5lzDDsee2yuzOmqfqOna+6Uh2tMxfEYEbvKvtMi+Wgd SP1j5ddTg4X4ZoCdBZQ/NU4hlgrFjcLuASUE8HYwSs=
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"

>> Use of any identifier outside the example space may cause real harm to
>> the owner, where that harm may range from serious harm (technical
>> and/or financial)  to mild embarrassment.
>> If anyone wants to use an identifier outside the example space, then to
>> protect both the owner  of the identifier and the IETF, the author really
>> needs to provide the IETF with evidence of  written authorization to use
>> it for this purpose.
>> In the case of this draft, have the owners of the identifiers
>> been contacted by the author, and do they agree to this use?
> You are aware that the same examples have been in a published RFC for over 
> seven years?

Because this point keeps getting overlooked, it's worth saying "... a 
published STANDARDS-TRACK RFC ...".

But, whatever. My suggestion is to stop posting in this thread and let the 
IESG do what they need to do, now that they have an appeal in hand. We're 
just distracting them and inflaming the community at this point.

They are actively discussing the topic, not just the appeal. From the most 
recent IESG telechat minutes:
6.2 IESG Statement on BCP 32 (Russ Housley)

    The management issue was discussed.

    Action Item: Magnus Westerlund to draft an IESG Statement on BCP 32.

(taken from

Jari has split off a new thread on "Measuring IETF and IESG trends" - 
obviously, that's not the kind of "posting in this thread" I'm hoping to 



IETF mailing list