[Top] [All Lists]

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

2008-07-09 17:45:44

--On July 9, 2008 2:51:20 -0400 John C Klensin <john+smtp(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> 
Advice or instructions welcome.

The technical matter is that we want to publish RFC 2821bis that is better than RFC 2821. As the IESG Note does not change the fact that 2821bis is better than 2821, it is irrelevant from a technical perspective.

Now we get to the matter of human/interpersonal interactions.

There are basically two camps: 1. People who find use of non-example domains in RFCs technically harmful in many/most cases. 2. People who find non-example domains rarely or never technically harmful.

The IESG note is an excellent human resolution for both camps. For camp 1, it allows 2821bis to be published while preserving the ability to defend their belief about technical harm in the future. It also allows people in camp 1 to save face without continuing to be obstructionist. For camp 2, it allows use of non-example domain names in this case _and_ it makes the IESG look stupid to everyone in camp 2. Speaking as a member of the IESG in camp 2, I find that a satisfying outcome. ;-)

So my advice is to let this outcome go forward as is. Other actions aren't going to improve anything significant on the technical front. And frankly the IETF seems lousy at human process engineering so I'm not a big fan of spending too much time on that.

                - Chris

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