IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk> Thu, 19 June 2008 17:50 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 53B9F3A69C7; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:50:15 -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 5EB533A6914; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:53:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.222, 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 ASF7F6+o0w3u; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.nexbyte.net (132.nexbyte.net [62.197.41.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC57B3A682C; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:53:00 -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 md50008197598.msg; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:03:47 +0100
X-Spam-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:03:47 +0100 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source)
X-MDRemoteIP: 62.197.41.145
X-Return-Path: prvs=1055364d35=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; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:53:42 +0100
From: Debbie Garside <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
To: 'Dave Cridland' <dave@cridland.net>
References: <8832006D4D21836CBE6DB469@klensin-us.vbn.inter-touch.net><485590E2.3080107@gmalcom><p06250116c47c330c7dd0@[75.145.176.242]<4856DE3A.3090804@gmail.com><049b01c8d089$6c901ce0$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110><23618.1213785541.031305@invsysm1><059901c8d132$d65df170$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110> <23618.1213788490.265871@invsysm1>
Subject: RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:53:18 +0100
Message-ID: <069801c8d185$56f8a350$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Thread-Index: AcjRgVGYxWC0k8J7RcKkEaMluhFeaAAAq3FQ
In-Reply-To: <23618.1213788490.265871@invsysm1>
X-MDAV-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:03:47 +0100
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:50:14 -0700
Cc: 'John C Klensin' <john-ietf@jck.com>, 'Pete Resnick' <presnick@qualcomm.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

Maybe I and a few others thought a BCP was worth something.  Apparently not.
Unlike the authors of these documents I am not privy to the reasoning behind
them  I am just privy to the document itself.  Neither are countless other
people who observe IETF BCP's. Perhaps I should not bother recommending BCP
47 (full of MAY's and SHOULD's) anymore or indeed contributing to the IETF
LTRU process.  It obviously is not worth the digital paper it is printed on.

A sad day for IETF in my book.

My last word.

Best regards

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Dave Cridland
> Sent: 18 June 2008 12:28
> To: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
> Cc: 'John C Klensin'; 'Pete Resnick'; iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on
> draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
>
> On Wed Jun 18 12:02:44 2008, Debbie Garside wrote:
> > Dave wrote:
> >
> > > Even on Wednesdays.
> >
> > Or for purple documents... ;-)
> >
> > I see your point.  I do think, assuming it is not already
> documented
> > and further assuming this is the whole point of the appeal,
> that the
> > IESG could create a general policy wrt BCP's.
>
> Well, that is indeed a possibility, but RFC 2606 - the BCP
> involved in this specific case - does not state anywhere that
> people MUST use the domains it reserves in examples.
>
> Therefore, to cover this particular case, such a blanket
> policy would have to be stated such that even vague
> recommendations in BCPs MUST be followed religiously, even if
> the document's author not only doesn't think that was the
> purpose of the document, but clearly states that wasn't the
> reason it's a BCP anyway.
>
> Maybe the policy could also state a Doctrine Of IESG
> Infallibility, and just bypass the entire issue.
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@dave.cridland.net
>   - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
>   - http://dave.cridland.net/
> Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
> _______________________________________________
> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email