--On Saturday, 14 June, 2008 10:44 -0400 Eastlake III
Donald-LDE008 <Donald(_dot_)Eastlake(_at_)motorola(_dot_)com> wrote:
Standards track RFC 4343 was issued within the past five years
(January 2006 to be precise). It contains some example domain
names that do not follow the suggestions in RFC 2606 as well
as some that do. As the author of both RFC 2606 and RFC 4343,
I believe the domain names reserved in RFC 2606 were intended
to be encouraged but not mandatory.
Donald,
Thanks. The fact that those recommendations have not been
consistently been treated as mandatory doesn't really affect the
core of the appeal, but it further weakens any claim that this
behavior is ok based on a consistent (even if unpublicized)
pattern of prior IESG behavior and decision-making.
best,
john
p.s. while I appreciate the comments I've received expressing
support for this appeal, I'm generally not going to respond to
them on-list lest the IESG interpret the comments as part of a
lobbying effort. The procedures say that appeals go to the
IESG and the IESG decides (then they may go elsewhere). I don't
believe that there is any prohibition on the IESG's asking for
community input if they want it, but they are certainly under no
obligation to do so or to consider such input as part of
considering the appeal. This note is an exception only because
it identified a fact I didn't have available when I wrote the
appeal text.
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf