Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think one can make a case that in some documents, use of non-RFC2606
names as examples is a purely stylistic matter, and that in others,
it would potentially cause technical confusion. I'm not asserting which
applies to 2821bis, but I do assert that there is scope here for
a judgement call and therefore the inconsistency is understandable.
Actually, Brian, scope is exactly what this judgment call is out of.
The underlying question is whether rules matter in the IETF or whether the
IETF is subject to whatever ADs feel like declaring at the moment.
If rules do matter, then the IESG needs to follow them. In very concrete
terms, the IESG needs to be constrained it its application of a Discuss to
matters of serious import and to document the basis for an application of a
Discuss.
The current case has an AD asserting a Discuss by claiming a rule that does
not exist. That's not judgment call, that's invention.
Even better is that application of this invented rule on a revision to an
established standard represents an orientation towards change that is
de-stabliling rather than helpful.
With that combination, you can't get much more out of scope.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf