Robert Elz wrote: [general procedural considerations:] > 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. A WG is an additional layer to sort out conflicts, with Chairs deciding what the WG "consensus" is, with a WGLC, and editors expected to mirror the "consensus" in WG drafts. Most issues are solved before the short two weeks IETF Last Call. An individual draft has authors, not editors, it reflects what the authors think. Backed by a sponsoring AD when it goes to a long four weeks IETF Last Call. There was no opportunity to appeal controversial WG Chair decisions for non-WG drafts, it is an informal procedure until somebody triggers the "PubReq". >From my POV that is a rather important procedural difference - "if" there are controversial points. But there are always nits where some folks (including the authors) are not exactly happy with the outcome. [for the specific 2821bis case:] > "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). The topic was debated at different times in the making of 5821, back in 2005, and again in 2007. I expected that this might hit a wall when 2821bis reaches the IESG, it's a known point in the idnits "specification". Admittedly this text is no BCP, but what can we expect, we have a semi-obsolete RFC 2026, an expired semi-official 2231bis, an old IETF marauders map still talking about the old Tao, etc. Most IETF procedures are in constant flux and different states of decay. [decision about foo.com] > That was already done for 2821, wasn't it? Seven years ago for 2821, time moves on. There wouldn't be a 2821bis if 2821 was perfect (it wasn't, the errata are rather incomplete, nobody bothered to update them after the work on 2821bis started, and besides the errata procedure didn't work as it should in 2005..2006). It is no secret that RFC 2821 kind of missed some points wrt spam by the diameter of the universe. > This is just a minor update. This will be one of the top ten RFCs in any decent list I care about. I never supported "minor update" theories for 2821bis. And the post-2nd Last Call 2821bis debate consisted of about as much messages as fifty ordinary IETF Last Calls together. None of them about "example addresses", in relation to other SMTP questions this is just too irrelevant. Frank _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf