[Top] [All Lists]

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

2008-07-09 12:10:14


I agree with some of what you write and disagree with much of
it.  Probably, at least for the present, it is best that we
agree to disagree (in part because, of those who participated in
the development of 2821bis, you are so far the only person who
participated in Tony's poll for whom "change the examples" was
the first preference.

However, in the interest of transparency and disclosure...

--On Wednesday, 09 July, 2008 13:19 -0400 John Leslie
<john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net> wrote:

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.

While I realize that I have that authority and responsibility, I
don't want it.  To the extent feasible, I've tried to act as a
pure editor on this document, reflecting list consensus, and I
don't see any need to change that now.  Getting guidance on what
people prefer that I do is a large part of the reason I sent the
proposed RFC Editor note to the list.  Unless one of two things
happens, the odds of my signing off (during AUTH48 or otherwise)
on text added to the document that this group has not approved
are <insert your favorite metaphor for a low-likelihood event

Those two things are:

        (i) The groups decides that it _likes_ the note.  I
        might settle for consensus that it is just more
        boilerplate and doesn't matter, but, at the moment, I'm
        not inclined to do so.
        (ii) The IESG changes the note in a way that identifies
        the harm they believe could occur and clearly identifies
        that as their opinion _and_ issues a clear statement
        indicating that they will attach similar notes to any
        document that, for any reason, is permitted to progress
        with examples or text containing non-2606 domains.
        They could do the latter via the pending "Checklist"
        revision or via a separate statement.

Otherwise, to paraphrase and extend Keith's comment a bit, this
whole thing looks to me to be too much of a petty demonstration
of "we dropped the DISCUSSes on appeal, but still have the power
to poke a stick in your eye".

Lisa is aware of my general position on this, or will be the
next time she reads her mail.  I have offered to help the IESG
wordsmith a mutually-acceptable note (which I would take back to
this list) or other way to proceed.

As far as any further appeals are concerned, my interpretation
of 2026 is that the posting of a Protocol Action notice that
contains a RFC Editor note is a separate IESG act from the
DISCUSS issues and authority identified in the appeal to which
the IESG has recently responded.   I don't know whether I would
generate such an appeal or not, but do suggest to the list that
everyone would be better served by resolving the issue earlier
than after a nearly-100-page document makes its way through the
RFC Editor queue.

   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_ input.

I have made a personal decision to not raise this on the IETF
list, at least until there is a Protocol Action notice and some
decision (by me or someone else) about an appeal.  Right now,
I'm much more interested in getting guidance from this group
than in initiating another flame-war. Of course, nothing
prevents anyone who feels that it should be raised there sooner
from doing so.


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