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

Lakshminath Dondeti <> Tue, 17 June 2008 16:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C14A3A699E; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7593A67D1; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:25:13 -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 ZkqFJIBjNW8L; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F8BB3A6986; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:25:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1213719957; x=1245255957; 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:=20Tu e,=2017=20Jun=202008=2009:25:56=20-0700|From:=20Lakshmina th=20Dondeti=20<>|User-Agent:=20Thun derbird=|MIME-Version:=201 .0|To:=20David=20Kessens=20<>|CC:=20 John=20C=20Klensin=20<>, ,|Subject:=20Re:=20Appeal=20against=20IES G=20blocking=20DISCUSS=20on=09draft-klensin-rfc2821bis |References:=20<6B100D42B8C49F65FCBBED8E@klensin-asus.vbn>=20<>=20<20>|In-Reply-To:=20<20080617130>|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20char set=3DISO-8859-15=3B=20format=3Dflowed |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit|X-IronPort-AV:=20E=3DM cAfee=3Bi=3D"5200,2160,5318"=3B=20a=3D"3812332"; bh=XknrH3YnLR/jv2/ylwFj8J0AKG3JtMmx4m+Zdgazb2E=; b=Gr4ByQgrCmC8UORYBubeMSKXYBj1uEUoQYdd9LfvP5oxypF6hAR7uqo/ F9RX95V5SE8r4e+swuVog2phZRS3uXZhFuRSj1a5CuNwaIc0GyJcSZaGJ tcgKaFJOuuUZ+3t7wl+lYf5tbTwd0fUVJKsjLA8Wq+G1OXYxTZh0t1bp0 s=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5318"; a="3812332"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 17 Jun 2008 09:25:56 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m5HGPuLD031479 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:25:56 -0700
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m5HGPthH022115 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:25:55 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:25:56 -0700
From: Lakshminath Dondeti <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Kessens <>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: 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

Hi David,

Thank you for sharing this information.  Now that the community knows 
this, perhaps this will be an option when there are snags in the process 
in future.


On 6/17/2008 6:02 AM, David Kessens wrote:
> Lakshminath,
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:01:17PM -0700, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>> I have also been disappointed by the IESG not once invoking the override 
>> procedures even when a DISCUSS is clearly inappropriate.
> For the record, during my time in the IESG, we have had at least two
> cases where override procedures were requested. One vote was requested
> by me to clear a document that I was the shepherd for that got stuck
> in the IESG for a very long period and where the DISCUSSing AD was not
> responsive while trying to resolve a DISCUSS.
> In another case, I asked the shepherding AD to request an override vote
> as I had fundamental issues with a document that was not likely to be
> resolved in a timely matter due to the nature of my problems with the
> document. Therefore, instead of me holding a DISCUSS forever and
> leaving the document in limbo, I proposed that an override vote could
> help us to force a decision early.
> If my memory serves me correctly, we didn't have to do a formal
> override vote in both cases as the request of an override vote was
> enough to get the first case moving, while in the second case I
> decided that an informal strawpoll was enough to decide that I didn't
> have enough support for my opinion so I switched to an ABSTAIN.
> David Kessens
> ---
IETF mailing list