Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
3912 was published in order to make it clear that the IETF
is not making policy requirements
Some people incl. me consider NICNAME as an essential asset
of "the Net" (whatever that might be), like mail. Perfectly
okay if somebody doesn't support mail, but many do, and then
they follow "the rules" (RfCs). Or ignore them. That's the
idea of "rfc-ignorant.org" as I understand it.
Disclaimer: I'm only a user / contributor, don't agree with
everything RFCI does, don't represent RFCI, etc. (No special
disclaimer, also true for the IETF and other "communities")
some people had been misinterpreting the status of RFC 954
as saying that the IETF had made such policy statements.
The RFCI Web pages talk about RfCs, not the IETF. Apparently
954 is older than the IETF (?). It was promoted to DS in 1140,
and replaced by 3912 last year... oops, a DS replaced a DS, I
didn't know that that's possible.
Publishing RFC 3912 is definitely IETF business.
Sure, I forwarded the "last call" to the RFCI list last year
hoping that they'd do "something", propose a better draft or
whatever, unfortunately nothing happened.
But I don't see where the "dubious" part comes in.
The I18N part is dubious, as demonstrated by whois.denic.de
it is possible to support UTF-8 and even more MIME compatible
charsets.
The last statement in the "security considerations" is also
dubious, there's nothing wrong with "whois", it's only simple.
But the really dubious part from my POV was the intent to get
rid of the critical X in "954 - X = 3912". Some users want
this X, and fortunately it's also covered by 1032 (plus 1591).
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf