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

John C Klensin <> Mon, 23 June 2008 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B9563A69D5; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81B7C3A69D5; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0bBT2qwQPsxu; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 833353A6948; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1KAsCU-0006gW-2m; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:59:42 -0400
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:59:41 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Russ Housley <>,
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Message-ID: <698F71BEE6ECCFF2C1348D8F@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <p06250116c47c330c7dd0@[]> <> <C122F91B-59B0-49AC-ABBC-6752217C4E47@NOKIA.COM> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
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

--On Monday, 23 June, 2008 14:19 -0400 Russ Housley
<> wrote:

> Dave:
>>>> If you feel that group was rogue, please explain.  If you
>>>> do not,  what is the basis for your view that its
>>>> considerations were  sufficiently faulty to warrant being
>>>> overridden?
>>> Prior to the appeal, this aspect of John's rationale was not 
>>> raised.  It was not raised by John, the document PROTO
>>> shepherd, or  the IESG member sponsoring the document.
>> Again, I hope we do not find ourselves in a he said/no he
>> didn't  exchange.  I'll
>> merely suggest that had the Discuss been immediately taken to
>> the  public mailing
>> list, it seems pretty likely that salient details would
>> quickly have been put forward.
> This is an individual submission, not a WG document.  So,
> there is no charter that lists the appropriate mail list for
> such a discussion.  That said, John did take the issue to a
> mail list.  I know this because someone forward his posting to
> me.  John did not CC me on the posting, which I interpret as
> not seeking dialogue at that point.

Russ, that note was sent to the mailing list after I received
your "change the document or appeal" note.   I believed that
note from you closed the door on any further dialogue with you
(or the IESG).  The note to the SMTP list was simply to collect
opinions on which of the two choices you gave me to adopt.

If you intended the "change the document or appeal" note to be
interpreted in any other way, I apologize for not copying you on
the question to the list, but I really could not figure out any
other way to read it (and cannot to this day).


IETF mailing list