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

"TSG" <> Mon, 16 June 2008 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E802C28C159; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59CCE3A693A; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:40:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.19
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.592, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LQ2TFBHOQJOp; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E9E3A67B7; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;; b=g0MC/NcSAZvfVUIzuM/BHZs9mYR0KlmYOTJqqtZWghaPIAhZx7zEshoK1ZqkQqEI; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Cc: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 [] (helo=tsg1) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1K8MRB-0002bN-Lw; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:40:29 -0400
Message-ID: <012101c8d001$f70c1cd0$0200a8c0@tsg1>
From: "TSG" <>
To: "Robert Elz" <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>, "Brian E Carpenter" <>
References: <><><> <> <>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:40:20 -0800
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-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec7993f086bacacf8bec408140542da38faf350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Elz" <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <>
Cc: "John C Klensin" <>om>; <>rg>; 
<>et>; <>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on 

>    Date:        Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:23:28 +1200
>    From:        Brian E Carpenter <>
>    Message-ID:  <>
>  | Which, in fairness, the IESG has documented, in the DISCUSS criteria
>  | document and generally in practice, over the last several years.
> The IESG is free to document their own procedures, that's a good thing.

No they are NOT. The IESG's processes MUST also be transparent just like the 
IETF's or they risk creating liability for their sponsor's that NONE of 
those sponsor's will be too happy with.

> They're not free to invent rules for the IETF, that's for the IETF as
> a whole.   What gets a document approved is IETF rough consensus, that's
> been the IETF rule for years.   If there's any real question whether this
> revision has IETF consensus or not, then it should be blocked.   If 
> there's
> no question as to that, then it should be approved - after all, the IETF
> would (under that assumption) have approved it, along with all of its
> examples.   If the example domain names were really an issue to anyone,
> that would have been raised during last call.   At that point, whether or
> not rough consensus existed to continue with the doc as it was could have 
> been
> judged.
> Even if we had a rule that all domain names in RFCs must be from the 
> reserved
> set (which we do not) the IETF has the power to change its rules.   That 
> can
> be done in general, or on a case by case basis.   Raising the issue during
> last call, and having the IETF decide to ignore the problem for the doc in
> question would be all that is required to set aside the rule for that doc.
> But we have no such rule, there's never been a last call on anything that
> says that all domain names in examples in RFCs must be from the set
> documented in 2606, so the issue should not even arise.   If there ever 
> were
> such a last call, you can expect I'd be an vociferous opponent, as rules
> like that make no sense at all.   There are perfectly good reasons for 
> those
> domains to exist, and very definitely places where they should be used,
> but this is not one of those cases.
>  | I don't think that changing to would
>  | destabilise the email system too much.
> Of course it wouldn't break e-mail, but it would make following the RFC
> sequence, and working out what changed, and why, much more difficult.
> Further, when dealing with something which necessarily deals (or should)
> deal with many different domain names (like e-mail does), constraining
> the examples to be from just a small set or (seemingly relayed) names 
> would
> do a disservice.   Sure, you and I know that the "example" in 
> is meant to be ignored, and isn't there for any particular purpose, but 
> can
> you expect that every reader of the doc will understand that.
> Even if there was an "only those domain names" rule, and there was a good
> reason for having that (neither of which is actually the case), there 
> would
> be a good case for ignoring it for this one doc.   If the "real" domain 
> names
> used in this doc are a problem to the owners of the domains, I have no 
> real
> doubt but they would be changed upon request, so that straw-man objection
> can be ignored.
> I have no idea which AD has the arrogance to put their own view of what
> the IETF rules should be above the stated desires of the IETF as a whole
> (as determined by the last call), but whoever that is really ought to
> consider resignation as an honourable way out of the mess they're 
> creating.
> kre
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list

IETF mailing list