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

[Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>]

On Jun 17, 200From ietf-bounces at ietf.org  Tue Jun 17 09:49:23 2008
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FAB33A6A77;
	Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F13373A6AA7;
	Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.578
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4,
	USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id stMQGPVvkn1U; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC6133A6807;
	Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,659,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="41812729"
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186])
	by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 09:49:32 -0700
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138])
	by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5HGnWWC028151; 
	Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:49:32 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com
	[128.107.191.63])
	by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5HGnWAl016778;
	Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:49:32 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by
	xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:49:31 -0700
Received: from [10.32.244.220] ([10.32.244.220]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com
	with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:49:31 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20080617130256.GM32214 at nsn.com>
References: <6B100D42B8C49F65FCBBED8E at klensin-asus.vbn.inter-touch.net>
	<48535EAD.6000704 at qualcomm.com> <20080617130256.GM32214 at nsn.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1)
X-Gpgmail-State: !signed
Message-Id: <386A1E4A-8164-408F-B7D3-BF968085AC2D at cisco.com>
From: Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:49:28 -0700
To: David Kessens <david.kessens at nsn.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jun 2008 16:49:31.0240 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[1D227E80:01C8D09A]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=994; t=1213721372; x=1214585372;
	c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002;
	h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;
	d=cisco.com; i=fred at cisco.com;
	z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20<fred at cisco.com>
	|Subject:=20Re=3A=20Appeal=20against=20IESG=20blocking=20DI
	SCUSS=20on=20draft-klensin-rfc2821bis |Sender:=20;
	bh=LPmQcChBKBlMivH8mOn/UiP2rABTc1b5Jagty5zIrZ0=;
	b=SZ+xIKtBl0YY1B7Zel5CDOZXIeiOh/rV6vUPxZXskMkmhxS4dqG4Uv55Ir
	c59Dzxw+OG/b00i6k262+a+D2lbwedApMmOgRWHzZpBRUbNhnCHCC7LOY+vR
	/6EfEb7+ai;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=fred at cisco.com; dkim=pass (
	sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); 
Cc: IESG IESG <iesg at ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>, IESG IESG <iesg at ietf.org>
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org


On Jun 17, 2008, at 6:8, 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 enough to decide that I  
> didn't have enough support for my opinion so I switched to an ABSTAIN.

In my experience, which is now dated, that has been the norm. During  
my tenure, we had at least two cases where an AD said "'discuss' and  
I'm not going to remove it no matter what". The first resulted in the  
crafting of the override procedure; the second had us drawing that  
sword. But the threat of its use resulted in the desired behavior, so  
it was never actually used. There was a third that one could mention;  
it resulted in the working group rewriting the document completely.  
The rewrite was a dramatic improvement; the "discuss" was removed as  
a result.
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


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 enough to decide that I  
> didn't have enough support for my opinion so I switched to an ABSTAIN.

In my experience, which is now dated, that has been the norm. During  
my tenure, we had at least two cases where an AD said "'discuss' and  
I'm not going to remove it no matter what". The first resulted in the  
crafting of the override procedure; the second had us drawing that  
sword. But the threat of its use resulted in the desired behavior, so  
it was never actually used. There was a third that one could mention;  
it resulted in the working group rewriting the document completely.  
The rewrite was a dramatic improvement; the "discuss" was removed as  
a result.
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf