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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> That's my opinion; I'm not asserting that it's an IETF
> consensus or that it necessarily applies to 2821bis.

+1

Some things I'd consider:

RFC 821 used foo.arpa and similar examples, and it won't
surprise me if the author knew precisely why this can
never have any undesirable side-effects.

As explained by John RFC 2821 switched to foo.com.  All
address harvesters looking for strings with an "@" have
found it years ago, nothing 2821bis will do can fix it.

Or the opposite effect, the RFCs listed in RFC 3092 might
have contributed to a better page rank of foo.com, maybe
the current owner has no problem with the overall effect.

Whatever 2821bis does, it cannot change the good or bad
caused by RFC 2821 and other RFCs.  Therefore the issue
is at first glance purely editorial.

*BUT* 2821bis will be one of the most important RFCs for
many years - assuming it goes "as is" to STD - and many
readers, who will take it as gospel.  They will see the
foo.com examples, and use similar constructs for their
own examples.  They won't know or read RFC 2606, and if
they get push back they can say "but 5821 also does it".

Of course I'd ignore red lights when there's no traffic,
and I just want to cross the street.  And I'd be upset
if some "authority" tells me that I shouldn't do this.
But is it really necessary to ignore red lights in the
presence of kids who have no clue what can go wrong ?

 Frank

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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]