Pete, > I first want to re-iterate what Eric posted earlier: Please read the > appeal. The *very minor* issue of the appeal is whether or not to use > 2606 names. It is the use of the DISCUSS in this case that is at > issue. That said: > I am uncomfortable ham-stringing the IESG (or having them do it to themselves) by requiring them to be excessively prescriptive about when they can and cannot use a DISCUSS. It should be good enough for them to state their reasoning behind it, with the understanding that if someone doesn't like the reasoning they can appeal to the IAB. If enough people disagree with the person or persons making the DISCUSS we have a recall function at our disposal. I happen to tepidly agree with the DISCUSS on the grounds that Marshall Eubanks cited, but only tepidly because the likelihood of injury in this case is vanishingly small. That having been said, the reason I agree is that we should strive to improve our documents over time. SMTP should not be an exception but instead an example.(.com ;-). Eliot _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf