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

Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com> Tue, 17 June 2008 19:38 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 D23B43A6A59; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:38:32 -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 4A6683A6A59; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.482
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.482 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.117, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 5E19fjSHko9L; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from multicasttech.com (lennon.multicasttech.com [63.105.122.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09BA53A6781; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [63.105.122.7] (account marshall_eubanks HELO [IPv6:::1]) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 11795680; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:39:15 -0400
Message-Id: <C3272D03-2B7B-4DF9-AE41-C8C4DDA3B964@multicasttech.com>
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20080617145443.3632ad65@cs.columbia.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924)
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:39:14 -0400
References: <8832006D4D21836CBE6DB469@klensin-asus.vbn.inter-touch.net> <485590E2.3080107@gmail.com> <p06250116c47c330c7dd0@[75.145.176.242]> <4856DE3A.3090804@gmail.com> <049b01c8d089$6c901ce0$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110> <2CCD27FF-11C6-4460-844F-AF12285EA2E5@multicasttech.com> <20080617145443.3632ad65@cs.columbia.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924)
Cc: 'Pete Resnick' <presnick@qualcomm.com>, 'John C Klensin' <john-ietf@jck.com>, debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
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

Dear Steve;

On Jun 17, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:44:33 -0400
> Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>; wrote:
>
>> I fully agree with Debbie here.
>>
>> Human experience teaches us that examples will
>> be used, over time. Foo.com is a commercial site. If the IETF uses
>> foo.com in email examples,
>> it is reasonable to assume that foo.com will get unwanted traffic
>> because of that. I think that
>> the IETF should not put itself in the position of causing avoidable
>> pain to others, even if the likelihood of serious harm is small.
>> Since there is a remedy, and it could be adopted readily, I think
>> that the discuss was reasonable and do not support the appeal.
>
> Yes -- and there's certainly case law to support the IESG's
> position; the IESG has been insisting on this for years.
>
> Now -- there are times when the stated policy just doesn't work.  I
> recall one IPsec document where the example had to show several
> different networks.  John's appeal stated that the WG considered and
> rejected using the 2606 names; perhaps this is another case.  (I
> haven't read the draft in question.)

I have skimmed through it, and did not see any such problems in this  
case. Of course,
I could be wrong and would be gladly educated as to the error of my  
ways.

 From your description, it may be that 2606 needs a bis too.

Regards
Marshall


>  Hoping the reader will notice the
> difference between example.com and example.net, or even
> bad-dog.example.com and good-cat.example.net, is just asking for
> trouble.
>
> So -- in general, I think the IESG's position is a good one, and
> well-supported by custom; however, there are exceptions.
>
>
> 		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

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