Charles Lindsey wrote:
In <138136228145(_dot_)20030114085738(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com> Dave Crocker
<dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com> writes:
The issue is not whether there is an existence proof for the practise you
want to standardize. The issue is, instead, the impact of a new standard on
the installed base that uses the old standard.
The primary impact will be on the installed base within Usenet. That is an
issue for the Usefor WG to consider, and it has concluded that the impact
is manageable.
That installed base includes gateways and moderators. While some in the
Usefor WG may think that the impact of the proposed changes are
manageable, there are a significant number of others who strongly
disagree. And the IESG and IETF will have to be convinced that the
installed base will not be presented with data which is illegal under the
existing standard -- that is what "the impact of a new standard on the
installed base that uses the old standard" means.
The impact on the installed email base is important, but secondary. We
propose to tackle it by specifying rather strongly what must happen at the
interface. There will be some impact, but we believe it is manageable.
You've missed the point. It's not a question of saying "abracadabra, change!";
the existing installed base operating under the existing standard cannot
be handed data which that installed base is unprepared for. "Specifying
what must happen" doesn't address that issue.