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

John C Klensin <> Sat, 14 June 2008 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D30693A686A; Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DE903A67E6; Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.67
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.930, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZCeQf+2zUYC4; Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49D4A3A686A; Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=localhost) by with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1K7ZHU-000BAD-70; Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:11:12 -0400
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:11:09 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <>,
Subject: RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Message-ID: <>
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 Saturday, 14 June, 2008 10:44 -0400 Eastlake III
Donald-LDE008 <> wrote:

> Standards track RFC 4343 was issued within the past five years
> (January 2006 to be precise). It contains some example domain
> names that do not follow the suggestions in RFC 2606 as well
> as some that do. As the author of both RFC 2606 and RFC 4343,
> I believe the domain names reserved in RFC 2606 were intended
> to be encouraged but not mandatory.


Thanks.   The fact that those recommendations have not been
consistently been treated as mandatory doesn't really affect the
core of the appeal, but it further weakens any claim that this
behavior is ok based on a consistent (even if unpublicized)
pattern of prior IESG behavior and decision-making.


p.s. while I appreciate the comments I've received expressing
support for this appeal, I'm generally not going to respond to
them on-list lest the IESG interpret the comments as part of a
lobbying effort.   The procedures say that appeals go to the
IESG and the IESG decides (then they may go elsewhere).  I don't
believe that there is any prohibition on the IESG's asking for
community input if they want it, but they are certainly under no
obligation to do so or to consider such input as part of
considering the appeal.   This note is an exception only because
it identified a fact I didn't have available when I wrote the
appeal text.

IETF mailing list