Pete,
I first want to re-iterate what Eric posted earlier: Please read the
appeal. The *very minor* issue of the appeal is whether or not to use
2606 names. It is the use of the DISCUSS in this case that is at
issue. That said:
I am uncomfortable ham-stringing the IESG (or having them do it to
themselves) by requiring them to be excessively prescriptive about when
they can and cannot use a DISCUSS. It should be good enough for them to
state their reasoning behind it, with the understanding that if someone
doesn't like the reasoning they can appeal to the IAB. If enough people
disagree with the person or persons making the DISCUSS we have a recall
function at our disposal.
I happen to tepidly agree with the DISCUSS on the grounds that Marshall
Eubanks cited, but only tepidly because the likelihood of injury in this
case is vanishingly small. That having been said, the reason I agree is
that we should strive to improve our documents over time. SMTP should
not be an exception but instead an example.(.com ;-).
Eliot
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf