--On Monday, 23 June, 2008 13:08 -0700 Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Hi Dave,
At 13:08 23-06-2008, Dave Crocker wrote:
For rfc2821bis, there was, in fact, an established discussion venue,
and it long-standing and quite well known to the email community,
namely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It could only have helped for that venue to have been known to
others, particularly
(re-posted, since the original apparently went out with an unsubscribed From:
/d)
Russ,
Russ Housley wrote:
I'm not sure I did a wise thing by joining the discussion, but in for
a penny, in for a pound ...
What I am seeing is a thread that had some bits of silliness, early on, but has
move
Russ Housley wrote:
As you said in your note, we disagree on the details. I have forwarded
the text to the list that shows that the issue was raised during IETF
Last Call. Meaning, it was not a late surprise.
First, there is a difference between a reviewer's making an observation, versus
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
Russ Housley wrote:
As you said in your note, we disagree on the details. I have forwarded
the text to the list that shows that the issue was raised during IETF
Last Call. Meaning, it was not a late surprise.
First, there is a difference between a reviewer's making an observation, versus
a
>In the case of this draft, have the owners of the identifiers
>been contacted by the author, and do they agree to this use?
Perhaps you might want to compare the draft with RFC 2821, which was
published over seven years ago, and then reconsider the question.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTE
Dear Jari;
On Jun 25, 2008, at 7:37 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Bernard, Russ,
I changed the subject line, I think the thread has continued long
enough :-) Indeed, I collect a set of measurements. These are based
on pulling information from the tracker and the documents. The
reason for setti
Use of any identifier outside the example space may cause real harm to
the owner, where that harm may range from serious harm (technical
and/or financial) to mild embarrassment.
If anyone wants to use an identifier outside the example space, then to
protect both the owner of the identifier and
Bernard, Russ,
I changed the subject line, I think the thread has continued long enough
:-) Indeed, I collect a set of measurements. These are based on pulling
information from the tracker and the documents. The reason for setting
this up was to try to better understand what is happening in t
Stewart Bryant wrote:
At least three ADs believe that the examples should be changed
I agree with them.
Use of any identifier outside the example space may cause real harm to
the owner, where that harm may range from serious harm (technical
and/or financial) to mild embarrassment.
If any
At least three ADs believe that the examples should be changed
I agree with them.
Use of any identifier outside the example space may cause real harm to
the owner, where that harm may range from serious harm (technical
and/or financial) to mild embarrassment.
If anyone wants to use an ide
I'm sorry for the way that this discussion has gone. I joined the
discussion in order to let the whole community see both sides of the
disagreement. However, in an attempt to provide clarity and correct
inaccurate statements, the discussion turned into tit for tat. The
back-and-forth banter d
Bernard:
The data is all public. Jari has done a very good job of extracting
the data from the I-D Tracker and making it accessible to
everyone. Of course, any requests for changes to additional graphs
need to go to Jari.
http://www.arkko.com/tools/admeasurements/stat/base.html
Russ
At 1
> We have a way to count DISCUSS positions, but we do not have a way to
> figure out what percentage of them are perceived as "late surprises"
> by the community. So, while we are taking action in an attempt to
> make things better, we do not have a way to measure our success or
> failure bey
Bernard:
Many of the IESG activities are listed in John's appeal. The DISCUSS
Criteria document is probably the biggest step that was taken. ADs
routine challenge each other to stay within those guidelines.
At the IESG Retreat we had a discussion on this topic. It is very
hard to measure.
--On Monday, June 23, 2008 07:41:27 PM -0700 Bernard Aboba
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Russ Housley said:
"I agree with this principle. In fact, I think that the IESG has taken
many steps over the last four or more years to reduce the
nearly-end-of-process surprises. Obviously, you do not th
Russ Housley said:
"I agree with this principle. In fact, I think that the IESG has taken many
steps over the last four or more years to reduce the nearly-end-of-process
surprises. Obviously, you do not think these measures have been sufficient. One
lesson from the many attempts to make updat
John:
Russ, that note was sent to the mailing list after I received
your "change the document or appeal" note. I believed that
note from you closed the door on any further dialogue with you
(or the IESG). The note to the SMTP list was simply to collect
opinions on which of the two choices you
On 6/18/08 at 10:35 PM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
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 suc
--On Monday, 23 June, 2008 14:19 -0400 Russ Housley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave:
>
If you feel that group was rogue, please explain. If you
do not, what is the basis for your view that its
considerations were sufficiently faulty to warrant being
overridden?
>>> Prio
--On Monday, 23 June, 2008 14:19 -0400 Russ Housley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave:
>
If you feel that group was rogue, please explain. If you
do not, what is the basis for your view that its
considerations were sufficiently faulty to warrant being
overridden?
>>> Prio
Dave:
If you feel that group was rogue, please explain. If you do not,
what is the basis for your view that its considerations were
sufficiently faulty to warrant being overridden?
Prior to the appeal, this aspect of John's rationale was not
raised. It was not raised by John, the document PR
John:
As others have pointed out, you are missing the _only_ thing
that I consider to be really important. In addition, we
disagree about some of the details as you have presented them.
You can consider this note an addendum to the appeal text if you
like.
The first issue is that, as several o
On Fri Jun 20 18:14:33 2008, Russ Housley wrote:
First, looking at a diff of RFC 2821 and draft-klensin-rfc2821bis,
I do not find the argument about continuity very questionable.
This document does include some clarification and lessons learned,
and it includes much more too.
Your first s
Hi -
> From: "Debbie Garside" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'John C Klensin'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Dave Cridland'" <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "'Pete Resnick'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMA
Ted:
First, looking at a diff of RFC 2821 and draft-klensin-rfc2821bis, I
do not find the argument about continuity very questionable. This
document does include some clarification and lessons learned, and it
includes much more too.
RFC 2821 Outline for Sections 1 and 2:
1. Introduc
t; -Original Message-
> From: Pete Resnick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 19 June 2008 20:22
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: 'John C Klensin'; 'Dave Cridland'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on
> draf
regards
Debbie
> -Original Message-
> From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 19 June 2008 19:24
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Dave Cridland'
> Cc: 'Pete Resnick'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Appeal agains
At 10:50 19-06-2008, Russ Housley wrote:
That seems to be the crux of the appeal. Does every possible thing
upon which an AD can raise a DISCUSS position need to align with a
written rule? Don't we select leaders because we have some
confidence in their judgement?
A process gets constrained i
Date:Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:32:59 +0200
From:Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Isn't the IESG is meant to serve two roles?
Yes, but not the two you enumerated. The first, and far and away
most important, is to cause the work to get done
At 1:32 PM -0700 6/19/08, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
>Isn't the IESG is meant to serve two roles? The first is to be the
>arbiter of community consensus. The second is to be a judge on the
>quality of the work before them, as to whether it is ready to move
>forward.
The IESG is not meant to over-ride t
Ted Hardie wrote:
There are very few cases where that is okay. It applies when
there is a documented, larger community consensus that the WG or
submission group decision ignores (a working group decision that
congestion control wasn't important would get pushback on this
front, for examp
Debbie Garside wrote:
> I and a few others thought a BCP was worth something. Apparently not.
Please don't panic, nobody said that RFC 2606 or 4646 are "worthless".
This discussion is mainly about some bugs in the DISCUSS "protocol",
and the somewhat unclear status of the IDNITS "specification"
On 6/19/08 at 7:54 PM +0100, Debbie Garside wrote:
I am more for going with standards rather than finding ways around
them with MAYs and SHOULDs. If there is a recommendation within a
standard IMHO it should be followed.
[...]
I don't see what the problem is with following BCP's
Please iden
At 10:50 AM -0700 6/19/08, Russ Housley wrote:
>
>That seems to be the crux of the appeal. Does every possible thing
>upon which an AD can raise a DISCUSS position need to align with a
>written rule? Don't we select leaders because we have some
>confidence in their judgement?
>
>Russ
Russ,
--On Wednesday, 18 June, 2008 21:53 +0100 Debbie Garside
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe I and a few others thought a BCP was worth something.
> Apparently not. Unlike the authors of these documents I am not
> privy to the reasoning behind them I am just privy to the
> document itself. Neit
Dave:
I'm not sure I did a wise thing by joining the discussion, but in for
a penny, in for a pound ...
>>- The examples in RFC 821 use different domains from the ones in RFC 2821.
>
>Where are the reports of problems with with that aspect of RFC 2821?
>
>Changes from Proposed to Draft are expec
ECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Dave Cridland
> Sent: 18 June 2008 12:28
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: 'John C Klensin'; 'Pete Resnick'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on
> draft-klensin-rfc28
Bob:
Insanity? I think not. Maybe you made the comment to get me post to
this thread. If so, it worked.
You are missing a few things that I consider to be relevant and important.
- We're talking about rfc2821bis (not RFC 2821 or RFC 821).
- The examples in RFC 821 use different domains from
> > However, I'm arguing that
> > there is scope on this particular point for concluding that there is
> > a *technical* issue (a source of confusion, i.e. a lack of clarity).
> If would be fascinating to see someone attempt to defend such a claim
> seriously and with pragmatic substance, rather t
On Tue Jun 17 15:50:02 2008, Debbie Garside wrote:
> Not being a expert on this but having briefly read the documents in
> question, I agree with Brian. This is not editorial.
Well, people have commented that changing the examples will hardly
break the Internet mail system, so it seems reasonab
By now, I'm hoping that the IESG has enough public and private feedback on
this topic to do the right thing (whatever that is, and yes, I also have an
opinion about what the IESG should be doing, which I'm not including here).
Do we need to say more? If not, perhaps we could wait for the IESG to
No, you're not the only one seeing insanity.
- Ralph
On Jun 18, 2008, at Jun 18, 2008,12:44 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Let me see if I understand this.
>
> - This is the specification for SMTP. It's was first used on the
> Arpanet.
>
> - It is probably as widely deployed as IP and TCP. Ma
Robert Elz wrote:
[general procedural considerations:]
> It can be tricky in any case, I don't really think individual
> submissions are that different - in either case, there's a
> last call, and the results need to be evaluated.
A WG is an additional layer to sort out conflicts, with Chairs
On Wed Jun 18 12:28:10 2008, Dave Cridland wrote:
> Therefore, to cover this particular case, such a blanket policy
> would have to be stated such that even vague recommendations in
> BCPs
I received a private comment which appeared to suggest I'm being
unclear here. So let me clarify:
The
On Wed Jun 18 12:02:44 2008, Debbie Garside wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> > Even on Wednesdays.
>
> Or for purple documents... ;-)
>
> I see your point. I do think, assuming it is not already
> documented and
> further assuming this is the whole point of the appeal, that the
> IESG could
> creat
Date:Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:35:54 +0200
From:"Frank Ellermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Figuring out what the "demonstrated will of the IETF" is
| is the job of the IESG,
Agreed, that is part of their role.
| and in the case of an indi
Robert Elz wrote:
> The issue is why the IESG is ignoring the demonstrated
> will of the IETF.
Figuring out what the "demonstrated will of the IETF" is
is the job of the IESG, and in the case of an individual
submission such as 2821bis it can be rather tricky.
Somebody *deciding* that using fo
Date:Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:02:44 +0100
From:"Debbie Garside" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| I see your point.
I doubt that you do.
| I do think, assuming it is not already documented and
| further assuming this is the whole point of the app
1:39
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: 'John C Klensin'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org; 'Brian E
> Carpenter'; 'Pete Resnick'
> Subject: RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on
> draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
>
> On Tue Jun 17 15:50:02 2008, Debbie Garsi
Debbie
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 17 June 2008 19:50
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on
> draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
>
> Date:
Hi,
Let me see if I understand this.
- This is the specification for SMTP. It's was first used on the
Arpanet.
- It is probably as widely deployed as IP and TCP. Maybe more so.
- It works (e.g., the email discussing this thread was sent via SMTP).
- The IETF is now advancing it to Draft St
[The main issue, in its discussion, and rightly so, is the "futile"
uses of DISCUSS - my favorite example being 2929bis « Domain Name
System (DNS) IANA Considerations », blocked for many months by
iana.org vs. ietf.org. But my message is about the "examples" RFC such
as 2606, 3330, 3849 or 4735.]
John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Changing the examples (or not) has _never_ been the core
> question.
I understand that, but I think the reason behind the DISCUSS can lead to
a better document. I sympathize with your effort to make the IESG
decision process better documented, or at l
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Brian Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>> Here's my suggestion:
>>
>> List 2606 in the informative references, and footnote the examples used
>> to indicate
>> that they are "grandfathered" non-2606 examples.
>>
>> So, in text that previously read "not-example.co
Dear Dave;
On Jun 17, 2008, at 3:36 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> I fully agree with Debbie here.
>> Human experience teaches us that examples will
>> be used, over time.
>
> Seems like 25+ years is a pretty solid sample size of experience, to
> test such a theory.*
>
Dear Colleagues,
I'm reading the proceedings of the IETF for the past few months. They
surprise me very much. I thought that the IETF was a serious
institution seriously publishing serious standards. I realized that
his organization is not made for that and I wonder how it can publish
something ser
John C Klensin wrote:
> hypothesize that, at some point, an RFC 2606bis might be created
> (and go through the consensus process to BCP) that offers special
> reserved names for newsgroups or mailing lists as well as domain
> names
JFTR, with respect to newsgroups that is already specified in
htt
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on
draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
>Date:Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:50:02 +0100
>From:"Debbie Garside" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
&g
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 the
Dear Steve;
On Jun 17, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:44:33 -0400
> Marshall Eubanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I fully agree with Debbie here.
>>
>> Human experience teaches us that examples will
>> be used, over time. Foo.com is a commercial site. If t
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:
On 6/17/08 at 2:54 PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jun 2
--On Tuesday, 17 June, 2008 11:30 +0200 Simon Josefsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Here's my suggestion:
>>
>> List 2606 in the informative references, and footnote the
>> examples used to indicate
>> that they are "grandfathered" non-2606 exam
if indeed RFC 2606 (a.k.a, BCP 32) said "all domain names in
RFCs MUST use one of the following bases" then a blocking DISCUSS
by an IESG member would be a reasonable thing. RFC 2606 does not
say that and, thus, a blocking DISCUSS is not reasonable
if the IESG had posted a set of rules that s
For what it's worth, I thought I remembered which document David was talking
about in his second case, and confirmed that it was
draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-09.txt.
There are narrative minutes from the telechat where David's DISCUSS position
was discussed, at
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Narrati
: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on
draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Date:Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:50:02 +0100
From:"Debbie Garside" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| I would also add that to go against an IETF BCP
Huh? The BCP
Date:Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:50:02 +0100
From:"Debbie Garside" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| I would also add that to go against an IETF BCP
Huh? The BCP in question says (in a bit more eloquent form)
"Here are some domain names that are reserv
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:44:33 -0400
Marshall Eubanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I fully agree with Debbie here.
>
> Human experience teaches us that examples will
> be used, over time. Foo.com is a commercial site. If the IETF uses
> foo.com in email examples,
> it is reasonable to assume that
TED] On
>> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
>> Sent: 16 June 2008 22:42
>> To: Pete Resnick
>> Cc: John C Klensin; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on
>> draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
>>
>> Pete (and Dave C
]; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on
> draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
>
> Pete (and Dave Crocker),
>
> On 2008-06-17 03:20, Pete Resnick wrote:
> > On 6/16/08 at 10:00 AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> >> I think one can make
On 6/17/2008 9:45 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Thank you for sharing this information. Now that the community knows
>> this, perhaps this will be an option when there are snags in the
>> process in future.
>
>
> Folks keep missing the point:
On Jun 17, 2008, at 6:02 AM, David Kessens wrote:
> If my memory serves me correctly, we didn't have to do a formal
> override vote in both cases as the request of an override vote was
> enough to get the first case moving, while in the second case I
> decided that an informal strawpoll was
On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:36 PM, Brian Dickson wrote:
> List 2606 in the informative references, and footnote the examples
> used to indicate that they are "grandfathered" non-2606 examples.
It seems that this gives 2606 more weight than it claims. What it
claims is, quoting its abstract:
Hi David,
Thank you for sharing this information. Now that the community knows
this, perhaps this will be an option when there are snags in the process
in future.
regards,
Lakshminath
On 6/17/2008 6:02 AM, David Kessens wrote:
> Lakshminath,
>
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:01:17PM -0700, Laks
Lakshminath,
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:01:17PM -0700, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>
> I have also been disappointed by the IESG not once invoking the override
> procedures even when a DISCUSS is clearly inappropriate.
For the record, during my time in the IESG, we have had at least two
cases w
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Brian Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's my suggestion:
>
> List 2606 in the informative references, and footnote the examples used
> to indicate
>
Brian Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's my suggestion:
>
> List 2606 in the informative references, and footnote the examples used
> to indicate
> that they are "grandfathered" non-2606 examples.
>
> So, in text that previously read "not-example.com", it might read
> "not-example.com
Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>
>> That's my opinion; I'm not asserting that it's an IETF
>> consensus or that it necessarily applies to 2821bis.
>>
>
> +1
>
> Some things I'd consider:
>
> RFC 821 used foo.arpa and similar examples, and it won't
> surprise me if the a
John C Klensin wrote:
> (1) The tracker categories are a matter of IESG decisions, not
> of anything on which the community has ever reached consensus or
> been asked to do so (something I actually consider a good
> thing). The IESG can change them as needed. If the current
> state of the tool
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 sco
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> However, I'm arguing that
> there is scope on this particular point for concluding that there is
> a *technical* issue (a source of confusion, i.e. a lack of clarity).
If would be fascinating to see someone attempt to defend such a claim
seriously and with pragmat
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> That's my opinion; I'm not asserting that it's an IETF
> consensus or that it necessarily applies to 2821bis.
+1
Some things I'd consider:
RFC 821 used foo.arpa and similar examples, and it won't
surprise me if the author knew precisely why this can
never have any und
Eric, Brian, and others...
Since this has turned into a general discussion about DISCUSS,
etc., a few comments. With regard to the specific appeal,
everyone should remember that, under our procedures, the focus
of an appeal in the first instance is "please reconsider this
and decide whether you r
Pete (and Dave Crocker),
On 2008-06-17 03:20, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 6/16/08 at 10:00 AM +1200, 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 cau
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Elz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 12:51 AM
happened in
the open.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: Appeal aga
Date:Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:23:28 +1200
From:Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Which, in fairness, the IESG has documented, in the DISCUSS criteria
| document and generally in practice, over the last several years.
The IESG is f
--On Saturday, 14 June, 2008 10:44 -0400 Eastlake III
Donald-LDE008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Standards track RFC 4343 was issued within the past five years
> (January 2006 to be precise). It contains some example domain
> names that do not follow the suggestions in RFC 2606 as well
> as some
+1. Does "this is a discuss discuss question" mean that "I just want to
discuss this, it's a nit, don't worry" or does it mean "we ABSOLUTELY
MUST DISCUSS this and nothing's moving until we do!" Without other
context, you don't know.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Eric Gray wrot
On 6/16/08 at 10:00 AM +1200, 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.
Please make that case if you would, because the ex
l Engineer
Ericsson
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 6:00 PM
> To: John C Klensin
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG block
Dave,
On 2008-06-16 11:44, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> 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 whic
Regardless of John's P.S., I'd like to make some comments
that the IESG may wish to consider:
On 2008-06-15 05:11, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Saturday, 14 June, 2008 10:44 -0400 Eastlake III
> Donald-LDE008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Standards track RFC 4343 was issued within the past f
--On Saturday, 14 June, 2008 10:44 -0400 Eastlake III
Donald-LDE008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Standards track RFC 4343 was issued within the past five years
> (January 2006 to be precise). It contains some example domain
> names that do not follow the suggestions in RFC 2606 as well
> as some
Standards track RFC 4343 was issued within the past five years (January
2006 to be precise). It contains some example domain names that do not
follow the suggestions in RFC 2606 as well as some that do. As the
author of both RFC 2606 and RFC 4343, I believe the domain names
reserved in RFC 2606 wer
On 6/13/2008 6:14 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> I note that, while the present situation and 2821bis constitute
> particularly glaring examples of these misplaced priorities and
> abuses, none of the issues above is unique to 2821bis. They
> are really about how the IESG manages and expresses i
Executive Summary
draft-klensin-rfc2821bis completed IETF Last Call for approval
as Draft Standard and was placed in "IESG Evaluation" state on
May 1st. IESG positions about it were first recorded on May
5th. Several minor technical issues were quickly resolved.
However, an AD has entered a DISC
98 matches
Mail list logo
