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

Lakshminath Dondeti <> Sat, 14 June 2008 06:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361DA3A68FA; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E54B33A68FA; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:00:52 -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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19uHEipfMLeI; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE1EF3A68F2; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1213423286; x=1244959286; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-ironport-av; z=Message-ID:=20<>|Date:=20Fr i,=2013=20Jun=202008=2023:01:17=20-0700|From:=20Lakshmina th=20Dondeti=20<>|User-Agent:=20Thun derbird=|MIME-Version:=201 .0|To:=20John=20C=20Klensin=20<>|CC:=20i,|Subject:=20Re:=20Appeal=20a gainst=20IESG=20blocking=20DISCUSS=20on=20draft-klensin-r fc2821bis|References:=20<6B100D42B8C49F65FCBBED8E@klensin>|In-Reply-To:=20<6B100D42B8C49F> |Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3DISO-8859-15=3B =20format=3Dflowed|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit |X-IronPort-AV:=20E=3DMcAfee=3Bi=3D"5200,2160,5317"=3B=20 a=3D"3924475"; bh=ZaOr7POHy1KVstnrTBs61wP7KXl+1Ytt06XC52R7fLU=; b=ceavTruK3D8l60bJPnVKwMcvRc7+BI0z2mYjlyha68Gb3/XksvF/BtEc tNUk7vcNzNmTlpyrRg6G4nu+IMJJDwblKiqLfOVkndImndKsiZH8Yg4EO R8Mw0K/hJHF3a6HbtYgOxAuoxnkrwnMTN7LM/zboGp/JRFM3TbVSVXXOK Y=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5317"; a="3924475"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 13 Jun 2008 23:01:23 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m5E61N7W023323 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:01:23 -0700
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m5E61HXd021622 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:01:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:01:17 -0700
From: Lakshminath Dondeti <>
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: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
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 6/13/2008 6:14 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

> I note that, while the present situation and 2821bis constitute
> particularly glaring examples of these misplaced priorities and
> abuses, none of the issues above is unique to 2821bis.  They
> are really about how the IESG manages and expresses its
> authority and discretion.  


I applaud your decision to appeal an IESG DISCUSS (I have read far 
enough to understand that the basis of the appeal was consensus among 
folks who are closely following this matter and chose to comment on the 
matter of whether to file an appeal).

I do not have a strong opinion about this specific case (I may even be 
in disagreement with some of the specifics stated in the appeal), but I 
believe it is necessary for the community to exercise their right to 
appeal to let the IESG know that their predisposition to use DISCUSS for 
imposing personal preferences, biases or undocumented norms is 
inappropriate at best.  I strongly agree with the conclusion that we 
cannot rely on norms supposedly established based on instances of 
compliance under duress (ok, I agree that is a bit of hyperbole).

I have also been disappointed by the IESG not once invoking the override 
procedures even when a DISCUSS is clearly inappropriate.

An appeal crossed my mind a few times in the recent past and I have 
seriously considered appealing a couple of times, but due to time 
constraints chose to pursue the path of least resistance.  I thank you 
for taking the time and energy to appeal.

best regards,
IETF mailing list