A real example, with names RE: "Adult supervision"

[john.loughney at nokia.com]

Hi Keith,

> do you think writing up 30 pages of detailed explanation is 
> constructive?

In some cases a 2 or 5 page document would be enough, at least for
me.  Many times, I am just looking for documentation why I should
or should not do 'x'.  Here is a good example, actually involving
you.

When I took over the editorship of the Diameter Base spec, I
was given a comment by the IESG that using different ports
for TLS & non-TLS traffic violated a long-held IESG policy.  Of course,
this policy is not written down.  As I have certain job responsibilities,
folks at home were asking me what problems are caused by this,
for which I had no answer.  After some pestering, someone, Bert W.
I think, pointed me to an SMTP RFC with some discussion about port
usage ... it didn't really provide me with convincing material,
but I was motivated to get the doc done, so I made the fix.

A bit later, in another WG, the same issue came up again.  The WG 
Security advisor, when asked about this mentioned - 'Oh, that was
Keith's big thing ... mumble, mumble.'  Further mail exchanges with
him & the responsible AD did not produce any insight or conclusions,
so I'm left with little insight or understanding if it is allowed
to use multiple ports or not.  Currently, the WG is leaning towards
a 2-port model; does this mean we'll suffer a gotcha during IESG
review?

John