[Top] [All Lists]

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

2008-07-09 09:53:05

Hi John,
At 23:51 08-07-2008, John C Klensin wrote:
This is the "surprise" referred to in one of my earlier notes.

Just so everyone knows, the appeal response says, in part...

        "The IESG came to consensus that the use of non-example
        domain names should not prevent publication of
        RFC2821bis, even though the IESG finds this practice can
        cause harm. The arguments made in public list discussion
        of the appeal have been a factor in the IESG being able
        to come to consensus on this point."

I thought that wording was a little odd when I first read it
but, other than noting that the IESG "finding" of harm did not
appear to be consistent with community consensus, didn't pay a
lot of attention to it.

However, while it is apparently not final and still has not
appeared in the tracker (see,
the apparent intent of the IESG, reflected in the ballot at, is to add
an IESG note to the front of the document that reads:

        "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."

I presume that this text has been signed off on by all of those
listed as "Yes" or "No-Objection" on the ballot and note that
their numbers are sufficient to have a Protocol Action notice

Weighing only the examples against the rest of the specifications to determine which is less harmful seems odd. It's not like an appropriate reuse of "free" bits.

I'm going to avoid making editorial comments on that text at
this time.  I do note, however, that this sort of note has never
before been applied to a document that does not use 2606 names.
I also note that the IESG has made no attempt to engage in a
dialog on the subject of whether a note or this sort should be
added, or about what it should contain with either this list or
the IETF list.

By reviewing the document, the IESG is being asked to apply its technical judgement in determining the fitness and suitability of the specifications. The term "technical" can be quite subjective in some circumstances as we have seen with the 2606 discussion on the IETF list.

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.

At the moment, I cannot find any text from RFC 2026 which covers the area of disagreement. RFC 3932 (BCP 92) discusses procedures and has some text about IESG notes.

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