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

"Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk> Wed, 18 June 2008 17:07 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 05B623A6A28; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:28 -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 753793A6B57; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.351
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, 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 TsNqWZ721B8R; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.nexbyte.net (132.nexbyte.net [62.197.41.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427C13A6B55; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:21:56 -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 md50008192868.msg; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:32:37 +0100
X-Spam-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:32:37 +0100 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source)
X-MDRemoteIP: 62.197.41.145
X-Return-Path: prvs=105461d283=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; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:22:32 +0100
From: "Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
To: <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
References: <049b01c8d089$6c901ce0$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110> <8832006D4D21836CBE6DB469@klensin-asus.vbn.inter-touch.net><485590E2.3080107@gmail.com><p06250116c47c330c7dd0@[75.145.176.242]> <4856DE3A.3090804@gmail.com> <1421.1213728582@epsilon.noi.kre.to>
Subject: RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:23:54 +0100
Message-ID: <04de01c8d0af$af9bd9e0$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Thread-Index: AcjQrHQMsTBdIWSHTV2IltpEr6UjeQAAoqiw
In-Reply-To: <1421.1213728582@epsilon.noi.kre.to>
X-MDAV-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:32:37 +0100
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:26 -0700
Cc: 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

It is a matter of interpretation.  What does BCP stand for within IETF? ;-)

But seriously, Best Common Practise, IMHO, means, follow this unless you
have a damn good reason not to and if you have that damn good reason then
ask for the BCP to be updated. Just my interpretation.

Best regards

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kre@munnari.OZ.AU [mailto:kre@munnari.OZ.AU]
> Sent: 17 June 2008 19:50
> To: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on
> draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
>
>     Date:        Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:50:02 +0100
>     From:        "Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
>     Message-ID:  <049b01c8d089$6c901ce0$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110>
>
>   | I would also add that to go against an IETF BCP
>
> Huh?   The BCP in question says (in a bit more eloquent form)
> "Here are some domain names that are reserved from all normal
> use, and so are suitable for use in places where something
> with the syntax of a valid domain names is required, but no
> real domain name should be used - use them where applicable".
>
> It does not say "you must use these domain names" (for any
> purpose at all).
>
> Where's the "go against an IETF BCP" here?
>
> kre
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf