Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:35:54 +0200
From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <g3bkep$fjd$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| Figuring out what the "demonstrated will of the IETF" is
| is the job of the IESG,
Agreed, that is part of their role.
| and in the case of an individual
| submission such as 2821bis it can be rather tricky.
It can be tricky in any case, I don't really think individual
submissions are that different - in either case, there's a last
call, and the results need to be evaluated.
If, in this case, the reason for the IESG's objection were something
along the lines of "there seems to be a disputed about whether the
domain names used in examples are the correct ones to use, so we
don't see consensus to publish it", that would be fine (it may or
not be debatable, but procedurally fine), and the IETF as a whole would
need to make a decision (using the IESG as arbiter).
But that is not what happened here.
| Somebody *deciding* that using foo.com in 2821bis is "the
| demonstrated will of the IETF"
That was already done for 2821, wasn't it? It is published already
(years ago). This is just a minor update. Only a fool would go
making unnecessary changes to a document meant as a minor update of
an existing doc.
Further, there already was a list call on 2821 bis, wasn't there (I'm
pretty sure I remember seeing it). I don't recall seeing any objections
lodged to the examples.
kre
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf