Hi John,
I have tried to write a statement that allows the IESG to use common
sense. However, the problem I have seen several times when the IESG
tries to use common sense in issues that comes up regularly is that some
people complains about not knowing about this and that we can't enforce
it because there are no written rules. Thus the draft statement is an
attempt to satisfy several different requirements:
- Provide motivation why there are issues with examples
- Provide some guidance on how to handle situations which aren't clear cut
- Be clear that this is something IESG do look at and authors need to
think about.
- Prevent complaints about late surprise and heavy hands when we are
applying what we think are common sense.
If you have a suggestion on how this better can be written up I am
interested.
When it comes to harm, I think we clearly have some cases where examples
can have really serious effects, configurations being what comes to
mind. When it comes to email addresses they are primarily an annoyance,
but I think any one of us would be might irritated to learn that the
suddenly started receive spam in large quantities because someone
published their address in example in an internet draft or RFC. I think
that this is as far as this goes and something any contributor to the
IETF unfortunately have to pay for their contribution in an open
organization with open access to its documents.
Best Regards
Magnus
--
Magnus Westerlund
IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287
Färögatan 6 | Fax +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf