Spencer Dawkins skrev:
Hi, Magnus,
While not even dreaming of trying to speak for John, what I understood
his point to be was that our process is, and needs to be, more than a
set of rules.
You guys are going to get complaints (and you know that better than I
do). But you're going to get complaints whether there is a
perfectly-crafted IESG statement or not.
We've never recalled an AD, and we've never even had a public recall
petition presented to the community. Please feel free to use your
judgement, because the chances of that backfiring in any meaningful way
are just about zero.
On this particular topic, I've been really dismayed that we've gotten so
far into the weeds on what was obviously (to me) an attempt to do the
right thing - provide example domain names - that is now morphing into a
set of rules. You guys can keep tuning (and probably will keep tuning), but
- the principal justifications being advanced for why the problems you
are solving are real, seem very bogus, and
- you are spending valuable AD time trying to perfect a set of rules, so
you are trying to use your judgement now to avoid having to use your
judgement in the future.
Specifications are hard. Corner cases make them harder. Don't write
detailed specifications that you don't have to write. Asking authors to
consider (!) using example domain names as part of last call comments,
or AD review, is all that is required. Formally specifying when it is OK
to use non-example domain names is overkill.
I not trying to find perfect rules or even guidelines. I trying to find
something that is reasonably works and is understandable by the
community. And this is not about non-example domain names. It is about
the general case. I thought that I had managed to do a reasonable
generalization of the statement to cover examples of all types that may
cause issues. But I am apparently wrong. However, I don't know if it is
a function of the discussion around SMTP that make everyone dive
straight into email addresses and domain names.
But I do get the message make it even more general and don't have a lot
of rules. Simply a statement about this and the need to consider it.
Because I still have the feeling that if we don't publish any statement
about examples then we will have a lot of complaints that;
- the ID checklist can't contain think of statements because it is not a
rule
- as you haven't informed the community we will refuse to change text
even if problematic.
I also note that when we don't document reasonably well it becomes
impossible for others than the long timers to understand what should be
thought of.
<rant>
The "but what if a domain name is published in an RFC and gets picked up
by spammers?" concern wasn't even realistic in 2000. It's totally
unrealistic now. I challenge you guys to name any domain name that
started getting spam because it was published in an RFC (or
Internet-Draft) after 2005, and received no spam before publication.
If this was a real problem we'd stop publishing author e-mail addresses
in I-Ds and RFCs, and there's no chance we'll do that. So please take it
as read that 99-point-something percent of e-mail is going to be spam
anyway.
</rant>
I agree that it is a red herring from most perspectives. I think all of
us that have a reasonably big foot-print on the Internet do receive spam
in quite large volumes. I personally receive on the order of 50 spam per
day to my work account which is very well published, while my private
account gets 5 per month. This is the result from writing to IETF mail
lists, having my address in drafts and RFCs. No question about it. And I
would be kind of annoyed if anyone of you decided to publish one of my
private addresses without my permission. That is why SPAM was listed as
an example.
But as people are apparently get annoyed of this as an example of
unwanted traffic I guess we should remove it because it isn't the most
important.
Cheers
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