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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

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.)

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf