Subject: RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:20:17 -0400 (EDT)

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 said the same thing 
and asked for community comment and the comunity consensus supported 
the rules then a blocking DISCUSS by an IESG member would be a 
reasonable thing. But no such rules were posted and no such comunity 
consensus was shown. (Actually, I whoud hope that comunity consensus
woud be against the idea of the IESG doing any such thing since 
such things should be left to normal IETF process rather 
that to management from the top.)

Scott

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:00:02 -0400

--On Monday, 23 June, 2008 14:19 -0400 Russ Housley
<[email-masked]> 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?
>>> Prior to the appeal, this aspect of John's rationale was not 
>>> raised.  It was not raised by John, the document PROTO
>>> shepherd, or  the IESG member sponsoring the document.
>> 
>> Again, I hope we do not find ourselves in a he said/no he
>> didn't  exchange.  I'll
>> merely suggest that had the Discuss been immediately taken to
>> the  public mailing
>> list, it seems pretty likely that salient details would
>> quickly have been put forward.
> 
> 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.

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 gave me to adopt.

If you intended the "change the document or appeal" note to be
interpreted in any other way, I apologize for not copying you on
the question to the list, but I really could not figure out any
other way to read it (and cannot to this day).

best,
   john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:14:24 -0400

--On Monday, 23 June, 2008 13:08 -0700 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Russ Housley wrote:
>> 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 [email-masked].
> 
> 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