ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

2008-06-26 02:50:10


Russ Housley wrote:
This is an individual submission, not a WG document. So, there is no charter that lists the appropriate mail list for such a discussion. That said, John did take the issue to a mail list. I know this because someone forward his posting to me. John did not CC me on the posting, which I interpret as not seeking dialogue at that point.


Hmmm...

Only because it got shot down so quickly and soundly, I'll indulge in some sour grapes: Once upon a time, I suggested that all I-D's be required to specify a discussion venue.

What we have here, now, is an example of why that should be a requirement: An I-D is for the purpose of discussion. We need to facilitate it's happening.

For rfc2821bis, there was, in fact, an established discussion venue, and it long-standing and quite well known to the email community, namely ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org(_dot_)

It could only have helped for that venue to have been known to others, particularly if folks wanted to pursue a "community" discussion about a concern with the draft.

And especially since rfc2821bis development was, in fact, pursued with exactly the same rough consensus process a formally-chartered chartered working group.

But your last sentence probably highlights a basic structural disconnect -- for want of a better term -- that we ought to think about fixing: when an individual submission is actually the result of a group process, the group ought to be identified and direct dialogue with the group ought to take place, not depending upon mediation by an author or proto-shepherd.

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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