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

"Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mon, 16 June 2008 22:55 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 0CDCB3A69D0; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:55:39 -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 6AE723A69D0 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.626
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.626 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.627, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 YzhdLU6Zjd4J for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72BED3A69C0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1K8NcT-0004Lk-Pp for ietf@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:56:13 +0000
Received: from hmbg-d9b88e34.pool.mediaways.net ([217.184.142.52]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:56:13 +0000
Received: from nobody by hmbg-d9b88e34.pool.mediaways.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:56:13 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:57:55 +0200
Organization: <http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <g36r20$bgq$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <8832006D4D21836CBE6DB469@klensin-asus.vbn.inter-touch.net><485590E2.3080107@gmail.com><p06250116c47c330c7dd0@[75.145.176.242]> <4856DE3A.3090804@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hmbg-d9b88e34.pool.mediaways.net
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914
X-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
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

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> That's my opinion; I'm not asserting that it's an IETF
> consensus or that it necessarily applies to 2821bis.

+1

Some things I'd consider:

RFC 821 used foo.arpa and similar examples, and it won't
surprise me if the author knew precisely why this can
never have any undesirable side-effects.

As explained by John RFC 2821 switched to foo.com.  All
address harvesters looking for strings with an "@" have
found it years ago, nothing 2821bis will do can fix it.

Or the opposite effect, the RFCs listed in RFC 3092 might
have contributed to a better page rank of foo.com, maybe
the current owner has no problem with the overall effect.

Whatever 2821bis does, it cannot change the good or bad
caused by RFC 2821 and other RFCs.  Therefore the issue
is at first glance purely editorial.

*BUT* 2821bis will be one of the most important RFCs for
many years - assuming it goes "as is" to STD - and many
readers, who will take it as gospel.  They will see the
foo.com examples, and use similar constructs for their
own examples.  They won't know or read RFC 2606, and if
they get push back they can say "but 5821 also does it".

Of course I'd ignore red lights when there's no traffic,
and I just want to cross the street.  And I'd be upset
if some "authority" tells me that I shouldn't do this.
But is it really necessary to ignore red lights in the
presence of kids who have no clue what can go wrong ?

 Frank

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