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

"Steven M. Bellovin" <> Tue, 17 June 2008 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECE5428C19F; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 142F728C19F; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1ge6kCofpu34; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D836428C1A3; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 512) id CEB52553D1; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:54:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13660553B7; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:54:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 037BF284132; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:54:43 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:54:43 -0400
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <>
To: Marshall Eubanks <>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <p06250116c47c330c7dd0@[]> <> <049b01c8d089$6c901ce0$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110> <>
Organization: Columbia University
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.4.0 (GTK+ 2.12.9; x86_64--netbsd)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: 'Pete Resnick' <>, '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

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:44:33 -0400
Marshall Eubanks <> wrote:

> I fully agree with Debbie here.
> 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. 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.)  Hoping the reader will notice the
difference between and, or even and, is just asking for

So -- in general, I think the IESG's position is a good one, and
well-supported by custom; however, there are exceptions.

		--Steve Bellovin,
IETF mailing list