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

Dave Crocker <> Tue, 17 June 2008 06:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19363A68EB; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE343A68EB; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.651
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.949, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xAqyRTioEYGR; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0BC3A6848; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GN91PN019373 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:09:10 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:09:31 +0100
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
References: <9C6606488F857EEA3152C952@7AD4D3FB4841A5E367CCF211>
In-Reply-To: <9C6606488F857EEA3152C952@7AD4D3FB4841A5E367CCF211>
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/7493/Mon Jun 16 16:57:30 2008 on
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
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

John C Klensin wrote:
> (1) The tracker categories are a matter of IESG decisions, not
> of anything on which the community has ever reached consensus or
> been asked to do so (something I actually consider a good
> thing).  The IESG can change them as needed.   If the current
> state of the tools is such that they cannot be changed, then I
> believe that 

This type of problem with DISCUSS pre-dates the tools.

Yes, the tools will need to be changed, but they aren't the problem.

> (3) I believe that it would be perfectly reasonable for the IESG
> to decide to require the 2606 names, or to require them unless
> justification were explicitly provided and a waiver requested
> and granted. 

It is not reasonable to apply this requirement to advancement/revision 
efforts, absent active demonstration of problems with the existing choices 
used in the draft under revision.

> However, if there is one topic in the IETF's discussions in the
> last several years about procedures on which there is clear
> consensus, it is that the community doesn't like unnecessary
> late surprises and considers them destructive.  

This is definitely a deeper issue.

> Yes, exactly.  And the fact that this was discussed, and an
> explicit decision reached, months before Last Call makes the
> situation even worse, IMO.

Another deeper issue.  A single individual attempting to counter-act the 
judgement of the working group, without affirmative justification except 
erroneous citation of rules and without specific expertise to counteract the 
substantial expertise of the particular working group.  (Lest anyone want to 
invoke the "rogue" wg strawman.)



   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking

IETF mailing list