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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

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
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf