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

["Frank Ellermann" <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>]

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".  That's
about BCP 9 (RFC 2026), not about BCP 32 (RFC 2606), let alone BCP 47.

> BCP 47 (full of MAY's and SHOULD's)

Arguably tons of BCP 14 (RFC 2119) key words might obscure the really
important points, but that's another topic - it is difficult enough to
keep 2026 vs. 2606 apart in this discussion.  BTW, working on 2606bis
I stumbled over <http://rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3406>.

> A sad day for IETF in my book.

Well, I thought Dave's jokes were funny, but that's a matter of taste.

The serious question is tFrom ietf-bounces at ietf.org  Thu Jun 19 12:52:04 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 0F4803A698B;
	Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:52:04 -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 84B473A698B
	for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 i4VyFRLSnnrW for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>;
	Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 731343A684C
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43)
	id 1K9QAj-0008CN-II
	for ietf at ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:51:53 +0000
Received: from hmbg-d9b88e32.pool.mediaways.net ([217.184.142.50])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:51:53 +0000
Received: from nobody by hmbg-d9b88e32.pool.mediaways.net with local (Gmexim
	0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:51:53 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ietf at ietf.org
From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:53:31 +0200
Organization: <http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <g3edcc$4ed$1 at ger.gmane.org>
References: <8832006D4D21836CBE6DB469 at klensin-us.vbn.inter-touch.net><485590E2.3080107 at gmalcom><p06250116c47c330c7dd0 at [75.145.176.242]<4856DE3A.3090804 at gmail.com><049b01c8d089$6c901ce0$0a00a8c0 at CPQ86763045110><23618.1213785541.031305 at invsysm1><059901c8d132$d65df170$0a00a8c0 at CPQ86763045110><23618.1213788490.265871 at invsysm1>
	<069801c8d185$56f8a350$0a00a8c0 at CPQ86763045110>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: usenet at ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hmbg-d9b88e32.pool.mediaways.net
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz at gmail.com>
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

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".  That's
about BCP 9 (RFC 2026), not about BCP 32 (RFC 2606), let alone BCP 47.

> BCP 47 (full of MAY's and SHOULD's)

Arguably tons of BCP 14 (RFC 2119) key words might obscure the really
important points, but that's another topic - it is difficult enough to
keep 2026 vs. 2606 apart in this discussion.  BTW, working on 2606bis
I stumbled over <http://rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3406>.

> A sad day for IETF in my book.

Well, I thought Dave's jokes were funny, but that's a matter of taste.

The serious question is to what do what degree the IESG or individual ADs can
de jure or de facto force authors to jump through hoops.

 Frank

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


egree the IESG or individual ADs can
de jure or de facto force authors to jump through hoops.

 Frank

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf