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

FYI - ALL of the commentary submitted to the IESG must be done so through a 
process which includes it in the archive of that IP initiative or the IETF 
will see itself in a world of hurt the first time it is litigated against 
and it cannot produce documentation showing all of that material happened in 
the open.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
To: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Cc: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>; <iesg@ietf.org>; <ietf@ietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on 
draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

> Dave,
>
> On 2008-06-16 11:44, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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. I'm not asserting which
>>> applies to 2821bis, but I do assert that there is scope here for
>>> a judgement call and therefore the inconsistency is understandable.
>>
>>
>> Actually, Brian, scope is exactly what this judgment call is out of.
>>
>> The underlying question is whether rules matter in the IETF or whether
>> the IETF is subject to whatever ADs feel like declaring at the moment.
>>
> I doubt if anyone would disagree.
>
>> If rules do matter, then the IESG needs to follow them.  In very
>> concrete terms, the IESG needs to be constrained it its application of a
>> Discuss to matters of serious import and to document the basis for an
>> application of a Discuss.
>
> Which, in fairness, the IESG has documented, in the DISCUSS criteria
> document and generally in practice, over the last several years.
> The question surely is whether the IESG failed to do so in this case.
>>
>> The current case has an AD asserting a Discuss by claiming a rule that
>> does not exist.  That's not judgment call, that's invention.
>
> I haven't seen all the email in this case, so I don't know exactly
> what has and hasn't been claimed as a rule. However, I'm arguing that
> there is scope on this particular point for concluding that there is
> a *technical* issue (a source of confusion, i.e. a lack of clarity).
> That may or may not be a valid conclusion. However, one of the two
> DISCUSS comments points out that at least 3 of the domains used are
> real ones. So the issue of confusion is a real one. What I am
> saying is: these DISCUSSes are about a technical issue. They may or
> may not be reasonable, but I object to the suggestion that they are
> stylistic or editorial (which would automatically make them out of
> scope under the IESG's own document).
>
>> Even better is that application of this invented rule on a revision to
>> an established standard represents an orientation towards change that is
>> de-stabliling rather than helpful.
>
> I don't think that changing foo.com to foo.example.com would
> destabilise the email system too much.
>
>    Brian
>
>>
>> With that combination, you can't get much more out of scope.
>>
>> d/
> _______________________________________________
> 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