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

Brian E Carpenter <> Mon, 16 June 2008 21:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4C73A693A; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3455E3A693A for <>; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.485
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ER3CpkGuaCRu for <>; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99D8E28C172 for <>; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x19so1840793pyg.24 for <>; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JsxJxQzoMkAKeWeypm2PxwwNtGE+yGKqA/piNUWrGGo=; b=tOR48szOgqAGtU5w3OELiqct6CJlguN+8wemkLQcYxL1pV1SMY3lHaf62Y+xDbbTpG oTegqBSth5ukIXA946m5QH7VLcVHO+XPtdTyr30v1glmyxaJf5HNZ2SJQiEF97G536pl 1ERYNgmwzNOApCscb964lZyB+Zvjz8gABpU6s=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=uBdUfzS6Mfxfm+HFnlBidNPUWKreBrjp/vFzMQO3WIT0xdEY+arwZtcnnzeLqFFiFo OF7r9Yiwcp0qdI2eU9QOqPzRDu6zoO3WEi3kwLnEvgsT4+c6XNlqYOprjm4AG5QFm4Rz 9ZtVY+VKZ0vYxng4WETJ7WLNwdIHrKKssxizQ=
Received: by with SMTP id t13mr6947002waf.219.1213652544317; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ? ( []) by with ESMTPS id j28sm8003407waf.18.2008. (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:42:18 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pete Resnick <>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
References: <> <> <p06250116c47c330c7dd0@[]>
In-Reply-To: <p06250116c47c330c7dd0@[]>
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

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
>> ( we find:
>> "Editorial issues:
>>  - the document uses a number of
>>    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.


> Of course, the ballot in this particular case
> <> 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