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

John C Klensin <> Thu, 26 June 2008 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC2203A694B; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCEBF3A694B; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.339
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.260, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dBIzvdnwQkr6; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8886C3A68EA; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1KBwvQ-000OXb-9a; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:14:33 -0400
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:14:24 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To:, Russ Housley <>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Message-ID: <D01D9A364E066B3A60DD0099@p3.JCK.COM>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
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 Monday, 23 June, 2008 13:08 -0700 Dave Crocker
<> wrote:

> Russ Housley wrote:
>> This is an individual submission, not a WG document.  So,
>> there is no  charter that lists the appropriate mail list for
>> such a discussion.  

> What we have here, now, is an example of why that should be a
> requirement: An I-D is for the purpose of discussion. We need
> to facilitate it's happening.
> For rfc2821bis, there was, in fact, an established discussion
> venue, and it long-standing and quite well known to the email
> community, namely
> It could only have helped for that venue to have been known to
> others, particularly if folks wanted to pursue a "community"
> discussion about a concern with the draft.
> And especially since rfc2821bis development was, in fact,
> pursued with exactly the same rough consensus process a
> formally-chartered chartered working group.
> But your last sentence probably highlights a basic structural
> disconnect -- for want of a better term -- that we ought to
> think about fixing:  when an individual submission is actually
> the result of a group process, the group ought to be
> identified and direct dialogue with the group ought to take
> place, not depending upon mediation by an author or
> proto-shepherd.

Of course, draft-klensin-rfc2821bis does identify the discussion
list (which is also listed on the "Non-WG Mailing List" page).
So a requirement that an I-D identify the group and discussion
venue would have been met.   The complaint here is apparently
only that there wasn't a formal WG charter that listed the
mailing list. 

I trust that is not the predecessor to either an IESG
requirement that all standards-track work, including revisions
to existing documents to raise them in maturity level, come
through working groups or to a position that DISCUSS actions are
subject to different, and more relaxed, criteria for non-WG
documents, even ones that have been extensively vetted in the
community, than for WG output.


IETF mailing list