The IESG has reviewed John Klensin's appeal against the approval of draft-ietf-lemonade-mms-mapping-04.txt (see http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/klensin-appeal-lemonade-mms-mapping.txt for the full text of the appeal). Note that the Area Director principally concerned, Ted Hardie, gave technical input during the IESG discussion of the appeal, but recused himself from the approval of this response. After analysis, the IESG withdraws its approval of draft-ietf-lemonade-mms-mapping-04.txt as Proposed Standard and invites the lemonade WG to act on the following points. 1. The IESG agrees that the technical updates between the -02 and -04 versions of draft-ietf-lemonade-mms-mapping were significant enough to warrant re-review by the working group. It therefore asks the working group to review the changes between -02 and -04; if the WG is satisfied that the changes are within its intent, it should so inform the IESG. If not, it should produce a draft that restores its original intent, and so inform the IESG. When the draft is updated, the IESG will restart the review process at IETF Last Call. 2. We note that the Resent-Count header is not mentioned in the IANA Considerations. While RFC 3864 would allow it to be registered independently, based on the OMA documents, it would be valuable to include a note in the IANA Considerations indicating what registration class (Permanent or Provisional) would be sought for and stating that the registration would be accomplished by reference to those documents. Having the registration request be concurrent with or precede the approval of the revised draft would also be valuable. 3. The appeal challenges the legitimacy of a gateway standard mandating certain mappings to and from X- headers. In one place, the draft states: ...Such systems should be aware that X-headers might be removed during transit through Internet MTAs. It is not the IETF's business that the external MMS specification makes use of X- headers in a way that the IETF mail standards do not. Additionally, given the ambiguous status of X- headers due to the discrepancy between RFC 822 and RFC 2822, the WG was placed in a difficult situation. Mail gateways have to satisfy pragmatic as well as formal requirements. The IESG therefore believes that it was within the WG's scope to specify mappings to and from X- headers, as long as it is clear that they are not part of the RFC 2822 standard format and that their treatment by Internet MTAs cannot be relied on. We now believe that the above sentence describing permitted Internet MTA behavior is not sufficiently prominent in the draft, and we request that the working group expand and strengthen it or otherwise remedy the problem, unless the WG decides for other reasons to remove the X- header mappings. If the X- header mappings are retained, they are also candidates for provisional registration under RFC 3864 and should be noted as such in the IANA Considerations. 4. The appeal raises a number of other technical points that were not, as far as we know, raised during WG discussion, WG Last Call, or IETF Last Call. Some of them were raised by John Klensin in a review carried out for the General AD during IESG evaluation. We believe that if they had been raised earlier, they might have affected the document content. But this in itself does not automatically mean the IESG was wrong to approve the document at the Proposed Standard level. However, since the WG will be reconsidering the draft, if the WG wishes to make additional changes based on its review of John's technical concerns, it should do so, and inform the IESG when consensus within the WG has been reached so that a new cycle of IETF review can be initiated. 5. John's appeal raised the question of whether the working group had an adequate opportunity to review the comments raised by his review. The IESG believes that as we continue to encourage cross-area and cross-working-group review, the issue of how to make sure review comments are seen by the right people and handled in an open manner will continue to become more important. We would like to work with the community on guidelines for reviewers, ADs and working groups on how to handle these review comments. In summary, the IESG - withdraws its approval of draft-ietf-lemonade-mms-mapping-04.txt as Proposed Standard - requests the lemonade WG to review and confirm or withdraw the changes between the -02 and -04 versions - notes that the lemonade WG is free to consider other technical comments included in the appeal - requests the lemonade WG to improve the text about MTA treatment of X- headers, if these mappings are retained - requests the lemonade WG to complete the IANA Considerations as necessary, considering RFC 3864 - requests the lemonade WG to provide an updated version of the draft that reflects WG consensus, for renewed IETF Last Call and IESG review. _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
