[Top] [All Lists]

Re: More new text for 2821bis (was: Re: Response to appeal from John Klensin dated 13-Jun-2008)

2008-07-09 08:08:09

On 7/9/08 at 2:51 AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:

        "The IESG notes the use of several non-example domains
        (see RFC2606) in examples in this document.  These
        domains appear in the same examples in RFC2821.  RFC2821
        will continue to exist although its status will be
        marked as obsoleted by this document.  Thus, the IESG
        estimates that use of these particular examples in a
        revision to RFC2821 causes less harm than the good done
        by publishing this revision."

On the one hand, I am not entirely sure what this means. "2821 used these examples. 2821 still exists. Therefore, having the rev. published is more good than the harm from using the examples." That's not even logically coherent. So I object to this appearing in the document as is.

However, the last sentence *seems* to imply that the examples themselves still cause harm, which is not the consensus of the IETF, and I'm not even sure it's the consensus of the IESG. So I object to this note appearing in that it does not represent the truth of the matter.


I can also find no authority, in RFC 2026 or elsewhere, for the IESG adding text to a Standards-track document without such consultation. In particular, while Section 6.1.2 of RFC 2026 contains an extended discussion of the IESG changing categories, forming WGs, etc., it appears clear that the IESG is to "approve or disapprove", not to start adding text reflecting its own observations, observations that may or may not represent community consensus.

Indeed. See also RFC 3710.

My opinion: First get a clarification on what they are talking about. If the meaning is that they believe the examples do harm, point out that this may not be the consensus of the IETF. If they persist, appeal again. The original appeal was, in part, about the fact that the IESG is insisting on changes to documents without consensus. Unlike other documents where this is simply capitulated to, they got pushback here. As painful as it may be, this should continue to be pushed.

Pete Resnick <>
Qualcomm Incorporated

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>