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

[Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf