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

"Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk> Tue, 17 June 2008 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B24DB3A6B60; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8F728C18D; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 07:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.335
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.335 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.264, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 95Nf8Lp1prhR; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 07:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.nexbyte.net (132.nexbyte.net [62.197.41.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 900043A6B08; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 07:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 145.nexbyte.net ([62.197.41.145]) by mx1.nexbyte.net (mx1.nexbyte.net [62.197.41.132]) (MDaemon PRO v9.6.6) with ESMTP id md50008192101.msg; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:58:42 +0100
X-Spam-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:58:42 +0100 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source)
X-MDRemoteIP: 62.197.41.145
X-Return-Path: prvs=105461d283=debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
X-Envelope-From: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
Received: from CPQ86763045110 ([83.67.121.192]) by 145.nexbyte.net with MailEnable ESMTP; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:48:38 +0100
From: "Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
To: "'Brian E Carpenter'" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "'Pete Resnick'" <presnick@qualcomm.com>
References: <8832006D4D21836CBE6DB469@klensin-asus.vbn.inter-touch.net><485590E2.3080107@gmail.com><p06250116c47c330c7dd0@[75.145.176.242]> <4856DE3A.3090804@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:50:02 +0100
Message-ID: <049b01c8d089$6c901ce0$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Thread-Index: AcjP+oMzTfFPvShYQ+6IQJ1olmRYagAjfQnA
In-Reply-To: <4856DE3A.3090804@gmail.com>
X-MDAV-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:58:42 +0100
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:31:17 -0700
Cc: 'John C Klensin' <john-ietf@jck.com>, iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Not being a expert on this but having briefly read the documents in
question, I agree with Brian.  This is not editorial. I would also add that
to go against an IETF BCP on the grounds of "well we have done so already
historically" does not make an argument for continuing to do so; errors
should be corrected when found, not endorsed.  If we are to pick and choose
which RFC's/BCP's we will take notice of what is the point of
standardization? On the face of things, and with my little knowledge, I
would say that the person within the IESG who has invoked the DISCUSS is
quite correct.

Feel free to try to change my mind.

Best regards

Debbie Garside

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: 16 June 2008 22:42
> To: Pete Resnick
> Cc: John C Klensin; iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on
> draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
>
> Pete (and Dave Crocker),
>
> On 2008-06-17 03:20, Pete Resnick wrote:
> > On 6/16/08 at 10:00 AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> >> I think one can make a case that in some documents, use of
> >> non-RFC2606 names as examples is a purely stylistic
> matter, and that
> >> in others, it would potentially cause technical confusion.
> >
> > Please make that case if you would, because the example you give:
> >
> >>
> >> In the evaluation record for what became RFC4343
> >> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ballot/1612/) we find:
> >>
> >> "Editorial issues:
> >>
> >>  - the document uses a number of non-example.com/192.0.2.0
> >>    addresses/names, but in this case this seems justifiable"
> >>
> >> In other words this *was* a judgement call.
> >
> > ...quite specifically said it was an "Editorial issue".
> Please explain
> > the circumstance in which it would not be an editorial issue.
>
> Well, I've seen *many* cases of disagreement whether a
> particular issue was editorial or substantative, so I
> wouldn't claim that there is any absolute standard here. And
> I've been trying not to comment on the specific issue of
> 2821bis, because I have not reviewed it in detail and make no
> claim to expertise. Nor am I commenting on whether the
> specific DISCUSS comments in this case are reasonable or not
> and whether they are well-formulated or not.
>
> If a real domain name, or a real IP address, or a real IP
> prefix, is used as an example in code, pseudo-code, or in the
> description of a configuration mechanism, there's a good
> chance that it will end up in an actual implementation or in
> an actual configuration file one day (far from the IETF). In
> my opinion that is a source of technical confusion and
> possibly of unwanted traffic. So I think there is a strong
> argument that RFC 2606 values SHOULD be used whenever
> reasonably possible.
>
> That's my opinion; I'm not asserting that it's an IETF
> consensus or that it necessarily applies to 2821bis. But I do
> assert that it's a technical argument and not an editorial one.
>
>    Brian
>
> >
> > Of course, the ballot in this particular case
> > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ballot/2471/> makes
> no claims
> > about "technical confusion". I assume that when no
> "technical confusion"
> > exists, you *would* consider such things "an editorial issue"? (A
> > misplaced comma or the use of the passive *may* cause "technical
> > confusion", but unless this is called out, the assumption is always
> > that such things are "editorial issues".)
> >
> > pr
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list
> IETF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
>
>




_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf