On Thu, 26 Mar 92 18:14:20 +0100 you said:
I just want to be heard. Or: we made a statement on this more than
a month ago and it has not been addressed at all. Is this the way
to make Internet standards, just ignoring input? And in my mind
there was no reason for excluding MNEMONIC.
Keld:
The reason for excluding Mnemonic has been stated *OVER AND OVER*. The
IESG will *NOT* pass an RFC that contains a phrase of the form "usage of
<meta-blat> as documented in something we haven't published yet".
mknod /dev/sarcasm c 4 0
I suppose we *could* have done things the way you seem to advocate, and
reference non-existent documents. It would have made life a *lot*
simpler for us if we had just specified the then-to-be-voted version of
ISO10646 and carved it in stone. Of course, the fact that it wasn't a
full standard meant it was a moving target. Personally, I *like* a
little excitement in my life, I'd have *enjoyed* having the MIME draft
quote a defeated version of 10646.
Similarly, I'd enjoy having the MIME draft reference the working draft
of Mnemonic specifying *ONE* thing, and then have the Mnemonic crew
re-write it in some totally new direction. Such things make for
incompatibility problems that I can waste a week or two chasing, so I
can avoid what I'm supposed to be doing.
rm -rf /dev/sarcasm
I hate to say this, but the more Keld waves his "show-stopper" flag, the
more temptation I have to say that *inclusion* of Mnemonic would be a
show-stopper for me. I have seen "show-stopper" said *so* many times
even in the face of clear explainations that even *I* could follow, that
I have to worry that there's something wrong/broken in Mnemonic....
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Engineer
Virginia Polytechnic Institute