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

Pete Resnick <> Tue, 17 June 2008 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA79E3A6B59; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 310833A6B59; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qi1sH2J4qus9; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F067A3A6B36; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:31:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.7); Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:32:23 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: (Unverified)
Message-Id: <p06250101c47dba452f0f@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <p06250116c47c330c7dd0@[]> <> <049b01c8d089$6c901ce0$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110> <> <>
User-Agent: Eudora 6.2.5b1(Macintosh)
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:32:10 -0500
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <>
From: Pete Resnick <>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
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

I first want to re-iterate what Eric posted earlier: Please read the 
appeal. The *very minor* issue of the appeal is whether or not to use 
2606 names. It is the use of the DISCUSS in this case that is at 
issue. That said:

On 6/17/08 at 2:54 PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:44:33 -0400 Marshall Eubanks 
><> wrote:
>>On 6/17/08 at 3:50 PM +0100, Debbie Garside wrote:
>>>Not being a expert on this but having briefly read the documents 
>>>in question, I agree with Brian.  This is not editorial.
>>I fully agree with Debbie here.

Either Marshall or Debbie is going to have to explain this to me: 
Why, IN THIS DOCUMENT, is this not an "editorial issue". Nothing said 
so far that we can attribute to the IESG says anything like, "there's 
a technical issue here". Please, someone give any indication that IN 
THIS DOCUMENT, there is any hint of technical mistake that will be 
made because a domain name other than "" or "" 
is being used.

And for the record:

>>>I would also add that to go against an IETF BCP on the grounds of 
>>>"well we have done so already historically" does not make an 
>>>argument for continuing to do so; errors should be corrected when 
>>>found, not endorsed.

John did not "go against an IETF BCP". This is not an "error" to be 
"corrected". The BCP in question gives *an option* to use particular 
names, not a requirement. There are plenty of BCPs that make all 
kinds of suggestions, and some we take and some we don't. There is no 
"MUST" in 2606; it is up to the discretion of the user whether using 
2606 domain names suits a particular purpose. And in this case, the 
DRUMS working group made an explicit decision back in 2001 to choose 
something different in this document.

>>Human experience teaches us that examples will be used, over time. 
>> is a commercial site. If the IETF uses in email 
>>examples, it is reasonable to assume that will get unwanted 
>>traffic  because of that.

There has been no evidence, in 7 years of 2821 being available, that 
such has been the case. I don't see why you would say that it is 
"reasonable to assume" that. This is not a MIB or the like, where 
people will be copying this info into configuration files.

But let me repeat, this is not the major issue:

>>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.

Let's assume you're both right. Let's assume that it's better (for 
some values of "better") to use 2606 domain names in 2821. Let's 
assume that it is easy (for some values of "easy") to put those names 
into 2821bis. Let's assume that "the IESG has been insisting on this 
for years." None of that matters:

The DRUMS working group (which produced 2821 *after* 2606 came out) 
made a conscious decision at the time not to use those names. (It is 
documented in the archive.) The original document passed the IESG at 
the time without those names (while 2606 was out), and one must 
assume that the IESG at that time made the conscious decision that 
the working group consensus on this point was sufficient to leave 
those names in 2821. To STOP the document now (and that is what the 
AD in question has said about the effect of the DISCUSS) with *no 
technical justification* of why an explicit working group decision 
should be reversed (there has been none given) is a clear process 

Pete Resnick <>
Qualcomm Incorporated
IETF mailing list