Hi. We have reached an impasse with the IESG about how to proceed with 2821bis. The problem is an outstanding DISCUSS about changing all of the examples that do not use RFC 2606 (e.g., "example.com" and friends) names to use that convention, with the possible exception of those that point to ISI or USC. I now have an explicit note in hand that says "I await a revised document or an appeal", so we are now at a choice point. I'm inclined toward an appeal or other push-back action but am not the only one who would be affected by a further delay with this document, so want to explain the situation as I see it.
There has been fairly extensive correspondence on this subject. I've tried to summarize the situation from my point of view below in as short a form as possible. Lisa and Tony have, I believe, seen all of it and may have a different take on what is going on. If either does, I hope they will say something. Neither 2606, nor the "Guidelines", nor even "IDNits" require those names. 2606 (the only consensus document on the subject) says things like "can be used" and does not even express an explicit preference for them. There are three IESG position statements that might bear on the issue. Quoting from one of the earlier notes... > (1) The "Guidelines to Authors of Internet Drafts" > (http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html) does not > mention the issue of examples at all. > > (2) The I-D Checklist (IDnits, > http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html), Section 6, says > > "Addresses used in examples SHOULD preferably use > fully qualified domain names instead of literal IP > addresses, and preferably use example fqdn's such as > foo.example.com instead of real-world fqdn's." > > "SHOULD preferably" and "preferably" are, I believe obviously, > statements of preference, not firm requirements. That is > especially true of the second one, which doesn't even contain > the word "SHOULD". > > (3) The DISCUSS Criteria document > (http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/discuss-criteria.html) > does not list the use of non-2026 names as an item on the > list of criteria in Section 3.1. Indeed, it explicitly > discourages DISCUSSion for "Pedantic corrections to > non-normative text" and "Stylistic issues of any kind" in > section 3.2. The AD holding the DISCUSS (you can easily find out from the tracker, but I believe this is about principles rather than personalities and am generally happy with that AD's performance) has indicated that he doesn't like these names and considers their use "rude" and that the IESG has been enforcing the use of 2606 names as a firm rule for "at least five years". My position in general is that (i) The IESG does not get to invent rules that are then used to block progression of a document without consulting the community. (ii) Given the pressure on authors --especially WG Chairs and document editors-- to simply go along with AD demands and preferences, reasonable or not, in order to get documents published rather than permanently stalled, I do not believe that "the IESG has been doing this for years" constitutes evidence that the community has approved of the IESG's doing so. (iii) Even if one were to concede that the IESG has the authority to make this a requirement (which I do not), it is abusive --an example of a completely unnecessary very late review "gotcha" surprise-- for the IESG to impose this rule without documenting it in any of the criteria statement documents identified above. I have suggested in a few of my notes that, if the IESG wants to impose rules like this, it should move to revise one of more of those documents (presumably the I-D Checklist) to specify the requirement and see if the community accepts that additional rule once it is written down. Of course, they could also initiate an update to 2606 that changes "can be used" into "MUST be used unless the IESG grants a waiver". There has been no response to either of those suggestions. (iv) Since this blocking DISCUSS is inconsistent with the IESG's published statements about conditions for such actions (in the absence of a mandate from a consensus document, it appears to be an "editorial preference") and there seems to be no practical way to un-block it, it is a case in which, excerpting from RFC 2026, Section 6.5.3, "the procedures themselves ... are ... inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process". Of course, that would be irrelevant if the IESG were to reverse itself and unblock this document during the appeal process. I note that none of those three issues is specific to 2821bis. They are really about how the IESG manages and expresses its authority and discretion. There is one more general issue, which is what changes it is reasonable to demand to a document being progressed from one maturity level to the next. 2026 is not specific about this, but I believe that its language combines with a presumed general belief that we should put as few unnecessary stumbling blocks in the path of advancing documents to argue that late-review/ late-surprise requirements for cosmetic changes are inappropriate. The one issue that _is_ specific to 2821bis (and 2821) is that DRUMS explicitly considered the question of what to do about the 821 examples. In fairness, I don't know how much the WG was influenced by my personal preferences, but the conclusion was to eliminate the references to .ARPA (because they were distracting and clearly impossible given the current role of that domain) but otherwise to preserve Jon Postel's examples (not just the ones that used USC or ISI domains) to the extent possible. DRUMS reached consensus on what became 2821 and the IESG signed off on it. So this DISCUSS within the IESG now effectively overrides, not only discussions and conclusions on this mailing list, but the presumably-informed discussions of the original WG. And, for better or worse, another few months of delay in getting 2821bis published probably makes less difference than would be the case for a new Proposed Standard for which people are anxious to deploy conforming implementations, so I'm feeling less pressure to "just go along" than the typical WG editor might. I believe that there are four possible ways forward, at least ones that I wouldn't find very offensive (I'm open to other ideas): (1) I have offered the AD in question the option of changing the DISCUSS to a Comment, thereby dropping the implicit assertion that the IESG (or, even worse, one AD) has the right to _require_ this type of change at this point in the process. I have indicated informally that, if that change were made, I would "probably" change the examples. While I haven't said it explicitly to the AD or IESG, the only condition on the changes would be my checking with this list to see if anyone strongly and persuasively objected. In either this case or the next one, I would rewrite the Acknowledgments to explicitly point to Jon's role and examples and clear the text with this list (in retrospect, that may be what we should have done for 2821). The option of making the DISCUSS -> Comment change has been declined (at least I have gotten no response to it in any of the discussions). (2) People can convince me that the principles I see here aren't very important and we should just give in, make the changes, and get the document published. To me, that is equivalent to agreeing that it is ok for the IESG to have essentially-secret rules, developed without community consensus and undocumented in any description for I-D requirements, and then impose those rules using permanent blocking DISCUSS positions after Last Call. I believe that agreement would be bad news, but perhaps I'm being naive and the relevant horse is sufficiently out of the barn that it is time to acknowledge that, e.g., selection to the IESG is equivalent to anointment as a member of a group with imperial powers and divine right. (3) I can launch an appeal, following the outline above and asking for two specific remedies: (i) approval of this document as-is and (ii) a firm requirement that no AD issue a blocking DISCUSS on any editorial or other non-technical subject unless the requirement is clearly documented in a BCP or formal position statement that is subject to appeal at the time of publication and that is published prior to the document's entering Last Call. This is the default option unless people persuade me otherwise, presumably that we should fall back to (2). (4) Either instead of (3) or in addition to it, people could conclude that the behavior and argument that the IESG can and should do this because it thinks it can and has been doing so, despite any documentation or evidence of consensus, is sufficiently abusive that the AD in question should be singled out as an illustrative example and recalled. I will not initiate such an action, partially because I believe it would be justified only if an AD continued to resist after losing an appeal (remember that the IAB cannot require the IESG to take a particular standards action) but, if someone else decided to do so, I would probably feel obligated to sign a well-designed petition. What is your pleasure? john
