[Top] [All Lists]

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

2008-07-09 10:36:07

Pete Resnick <presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> 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.

   So what? Unless it somehow changes the meaning of the remainder of
the document, we can think of it as mere boilerplate.

That's not even logically coherent.

   So what? That makes it even less likely to change the meaning of
the rest of the document.

So I object to this appearing in the document as is.

   So what? (sorry... ;^)

   None of us need to like it. Only John Klensin needs to sign off on
it during AUTH48.

However, the last sentence *seems* to imply that the examples 
themselves still cause harm, which is not the consensus of the IETF, 

   It is the job of the IESG to judge IETF consensus, not ours.

   Honestly, anything posted here is pretty much orthogonal to the
question of judging IETF consensus. Things posted to ietf-general are
_an_ input to the judgment process. Things _not_ posted are also _an_

   Besides, it's an _IESG_ note: it doesn't need to reflect IETF

and I'm not even sure it's the consensus of the IESG.

   There are some pretty clear indications that the IESG spent hours
of telechat time working this wording out. I think we need to accept
it as an IESG consensus -- however uncomfortable we think it may be
for certain IESG members.

So I object to this note appearing in that it does not represent the
truth of the matter.

   None of us need to like it. Only John Klensin needs to sign off on
it during AUTH48.

My opinion: First get a clarification on what they are talking about. 

   Understand, I fully agree that John Klensin is in no way obligated
to sign off on this: the document can stay in AUTH48 until we get a
new IESG. I _will_ not criticize John K if he chooses that path.

   But, to tell truth, a "clarification" would mean nothing. The IESG
note means exactly what it says -- no more and no less.

   If John K doesn't like this language, he needs to talk with Lisa,
and see if she believes there's room for compromise. (IMHO, there
might be significant room if he changed the examples that refer to
currently registered domains.)

If they persist, appeal again.

   More exactly, RFC 2026 Section 6.5.2 says:
] Should the complainant not be satisfied with the outcome of the IESG
] review, an appeal may be lodged to the IAB. The IAB shall then review
] the situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own
] choosing and report to the IETF on the outcome of its review.

   (I am not recommending this; but it is the next step in the published
process: my recommendation remains that he talk with Lisa.)

The original appeal was, in part, about the fact that the IESG is
insisting on changes to documents without consensus. 

   I'm sorry Pete thinks this (but I know he's not alone).

   The IESG has a long-established process for reaching _IESG_
consensus. The details change from time to time, but it is IESG
consensus they're seeking.

   The individual ADs individually try to divine IETF consensus. It
should be no surprise that they don't always agree. Nor do they all
necessarily agree with our judgment of IETF consensus. But neither
of these should be taken as evidence that they aren't _trying_ to
judge IETF consensus.

   Like any consensus process, this IESG process sometimes leads to
delays. If we don't like those delays, we always have the option of
talking to the responsible AD, who will generally have advice on
the most effective way to speed the process. Sometimes, that advice
will be, "Humor him!".

   We don't have to take the advice, of course. We can let it stew,
we can try to talk to other ADs, we can organize letter-writing
campaigns, we can even appeal. But we should, IMHO, at least _try_
to respect that advice as representing experienced judgment of
the dynamics of the IESG consensus process.

   And we should not assume, even if "Humor him" is the advice,
that any AD voting DISCUSS is expressing only a personal preference.

John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>

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