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

"TSG" <> Mon, 16 June 2008 21:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBD493A6B23; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271733A6B35; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.24
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.24 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.642, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q90bRmnp0pUY; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B1C03A67B7; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;; b=cI/Z3XJJdwYEVH4VY7dH/Wn5NNDkZ8OwXNMt9gyjNVPxjZEPMTEZ5aODFsB2Mj12; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [] (helo=tsg1) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1K8MRA-0002bN-Vh; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:40:29 -0400
Message-ID: <012001c8d001$f6a0d7e0$0200a8c0@tsg1>
From: "TSG" <>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <>, <>
References: <><> <> <>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:38:14 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec7993f086bacacf8bece7ea90731b83a503350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Cc: John C Klensin <>,,
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

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" <>
To: <>
Cc: "John C Klensin" <>om>; <>rg>; <>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on 

> 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 to 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 mailing list