Jim Fenton wrote:
The capitalized MUST (apparently being used in the RFC 2119 sense) seems
a little strong here. This isn't a specification for a protocol, this
is an informational document which we are using to design a protocol.
Requirements documents are used to dictate choices by a specification
effort. That's rather more force than just being informational.
I agree these are good goals, but trying to make the design criteria
that rigid risks making our design process inflexible.
Requiring that we have a basis for believing a feature will get used and
won't break anything in the process? That's rigid?
We have no track record for this mechanism and I believe that there is
no precedent for one like it on the scale of the Internet.
It might be nice for us to start off a tad conservative.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html