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