--On Friday, 06 June, 2008 05:06 -0400 John Leslie
OK, John, you've had your rant, and hopefully slept on it.
Calm down a bit, and pay more attention to where you actually
John C Klensin <john+smtp(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
We have reached an impasse with the IESG about how to proceed
Not so. 2821bis is in status "Revised-ID needed". This is
one of the two normal states for a draft that's not approved
the first time it's brought up at an IESG telechat. You can
submit a revised draft or you can let it sit in that state.
There is no "impasse" unless you refuse to submit any
changes at all; and the impasse, if any, is not with "the
IESG" -- it's between you and Lisa.
There is some lack of precision and fine gradation in the
tracker and its mechanisms for threading comments (as you
presumably know, part of that has been the subject of a recent
discussion on the IETF list. The precise tracker state used
initially confused me as well; my recollection is that, after
one discussion, Lisa offered to change it to something else, to
which my response was, more or less, that, as long as I
understood the situation, it made little difference.
If the precise tracker state used confuses you, or seems
problematic to you for other reasons, please discuss it with
Regardless of the tracker state, the situation is exactly as I
described. There is an AD holding a DISCUSS about the domain
names used in the examples. He has made it clear, after some
off-list correspondence, that he isn't going to change the
DISCUSS. The exact words in his most recent note were "The
IESG has been enforcing the BCP for at least five years. I
await a revised document or an appeal. That choice is yours."
Perhaps there is another way to interpret that statement, but I
can't figure out what it is. And, given that, posting another
version of the document that does not make the domain changes
appears to me to be a complete waste of everyone's time.