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

Russ Housley <> Mon, 23 June 2008 21:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 283373A6835; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 737D93A67B2 for <>; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.802
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.802 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.797, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pq9bDqbi7xHx for <>; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id DF0D33A6835 for <>; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 17811 invoked by uid 0); 23 Jun 2008 21:35:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by with SMTP; 23 Jun 2008 21:35:37 -0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:11:32 -0400
To: John C Klensin <>
From: Russ Housley <>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
In-Reply-To: <698F71BEE6ECCFF2C1348D8F@p3.JCK.COM>
References: <> <> <p06250116c47c330c7dd0@[]> <> <C122F91B-59B0-49AC-ABBC-6752217C4E47@NOKIA.COM> <> <> <> <> <> <698F71BEE6ECCFF2C1348D8F@p3.JCK.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"


>Russ, that note was sent to the mailing list after I received
>your "change the document or appeal" note.   I believed that
>note from you closed the door on any further dialogue with you
>(or the IESG).  The note to the SMTP list was simply to collect
>opinions on which of the two choices you gave me to adopt.
>If you intended the "change the document or appeal" note to be
>interpreted in any other way, I apologize for not copying you on
>the question to the list, but I really could not figure out any
>other way to read it (and cannot to this day).

That was in response you your note that said I needed to change my 
position from DISCUSS to COMMENT or you would appeal.  I was simply 
confirming the position that we had reached.  That position is now 
clear to all.


IETF mailing list