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. 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. 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. 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. With that combination, you can't get much more out of scope. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf