Russ Housley wrote:
This is an individual submission, not a WG document. So, there is no
charter that lists the appropriate mail list for such a discussion.
That said, John did take the issue to a mail list. I know this because
someone forward his posting to me. John did not CC me on the posting,
which I interpret as not seeking dialogue at that point.
Hmmm...
Only because it got shot down so quickly and soundly, I'll indulge in some sour
grapes: Once upon a time, I suggested that all I-D's be required to specify a
discussion venue.
What we have here, now, is an example of why that should be a requirement: An
I-D is for the purpose of discussion. We need to facilitate it's happening.
For rfc2821bis, there was, in fact, an established discussion venue, and it
long-standing and quite well known to the email community, namely
ietf-smtp@xxxxxxxx
It could only have helped for that venue to have been known to others,
particularly if folks wanted to pursue a "community" discussion about a concern
with the draft.
And especially since rfc2821bis development was, in fact, pursued with exactly
the same rough consensus process a formally-chartered chartered working group.
But your last sentence probably highlights a basic structural disconnect -- for
want of a better term -- that we ought to think about fixing: when an
individual submission is actually the result of a group process, the group ought
to be identified and direct dialogue with the group ought to take place, not
depending upon mediation by an author or proto-shepherd.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf