ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2008-06-26 12:15:11


--On Monday, 23 June, 2008 13:08 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:

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.  

...
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.

Of course, draft-klensin-rfc2821bis does identify the discussion
list (which is also listed on the "Non-WG Mailing List" page).
So a requirement that an I-D identify the group and discussion
venue would have been met.   The complaint here is apparently
only that there wasn't a formal WG charter that listed the
mailing list. 

I trust that is not the predecessor to either an IESG
requirement that all standards-track work, including revisions
to existing documents to raise them in maturity level, come
through working groups or to a position that DISCUSS actions are
subject to different, and more relaxed, criteria for non-WG
documents, even ones that have been extensively vetted in the
community, than for WG output.

    john





_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf