Harald,
At 12:13 AM -0700 8/16/96,
Harald(_dot_)T(_dot_)Alvestrand(_at_)uninett(_dot_)no wrote:
That is, does "remove" mean "remove from specification", "move to a
document with another status", or "mark as not part of the standard"?
I believe this one is easy.
We make ALL of a document a standard, so we must remove from that
document anything which does not qualify.
I don't know that we've ever attended to the question of where to
put excised parts, other than drop them on the floor. But as you observe,
they might still have benefit, just not enough for standardization. In
such cases, a new and separate document seems the right venue.
Shucks, we don't even have a feature list!
The IESG vote is scheduled for next week. Do we have a volunteer to
do some work on this?
If not, I'm strongly tempted to declare that this document was already
at Draft, so we're just continuing a historical mistake.....
Not so much a mistake as an intentional looseness. We take folks'
word that they tested what they are supposed to test. This looseness has
served us pretty well, I think.
One always needs to look for checks and balances and in this case
the primary forcing function is claims from others that one or another
feature isn't really implemented or used.
What's wrong with that mechanism?
E.g., note that John K. raised a question about binary and Ned F.
responded. Further discussion should/will take place about it as needed.
Seems pretty diligent, to me.
d/
--------------------
Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205
675 Spruce Dr.
dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com
Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com
Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org,
info(_at_)imc(_dot_)org