FYI - ALL of the commentary submitted to the IESG must be done so through a process which includes it in the archive of that IP initiative or the IETF will see itself in a world of hurt the first time it is litigated against and it cannot produce documentation showing all of that material happened in the open. Todd Glassey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> To: <dcrocker@xxxxxxxx> Cc: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>; <iesg@xxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 5:23 PM Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis > Dave, > > On 2008-06-16 11:44, Dave Crocker wrote: >> >> >> 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. I'm not asserting which >>> applies to 2821bis, but I do assert that there is scope here for >>> a judgement call and therefore the inconsistency is understandable. >> >> >> Actually, Brian, scope is exactly what this judgment call is out of. >> >> The underlying question is whether rules matter in the IETF or whether >> the IETF is subject to whatever ADs feel like declaring at the moment. >> > I doubt if anyone would disagree. > >> If rules do matter, then the IESG needs to follow them. In very >> concrete terms, the IESG needs to be constrained it its application of a >> Discuss to matters of serious import and to document the basis for an >> application of a Discuss. > > Which, in fairness, the IESG has documented, in the DISCUSS criteria > document and generally in practice, over the last several years. > The question surely is whether the IESG failed to do so in this case. >> >> The current case has an AD asserting a Discuss by claiming a rule that >> does not exist. That's not judgment call, that's invention. > > I haven't seen all the email in this case, so I don't know exactly > what has and hasn't been claimed as a rule. However, I'm arguing that > there is scope on this particular point for concluding that there is > a *technical* issue (a source of confusion, i.e. a lack of clarity). > That may or may not be a valid conclusion. However, one of the two > DISCUSS comments points out that at least 3 of the domains used are > real ones. So the issue of confusion is a real one. What I am > saying is: these DISCUSSes are about a technical issue. They may or > may not be reasonable, but I object to the suggestion that they are > stylistic or editorial (which would automatically make them out of > scope under the IESG's own document). > >> Even better is that application of this invented rule on a revision to >> an established standard represents an orientation towards change that is >> de-stabliling rather than helpful. > > I don't think that changing foo.com to foo.example.com would > destabilise the email system too much. > > Brian > >> >> With that combination, you can't get much more out of scope. >> >> d/ > _______________________________________________ > IETF mailing list > IETF@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf