On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Eric Allman wrote:
Thanks for your good comments, which I will try to answer as best as I can.
Advice from our AD and WG Chairs was that in Last Call the point is not to
continue Working Group deliberations, but to (a) find minor wording issues,
and (b) find show stoppers. In several cases you have made some good
suggestions, but since they fall in the grey area between trivial and
critical we are going to have to side-step them for now. We apologize for
this, and wish we had gotten them before we went into Last Call, but we are
also trying to get the document out sooner rather than later, and no project
ever gets to the point where all parties consider it perfect.
I do not believe this is an appropriate way to handle IETF LC
comments. This approach could be understandable for issues which have
already been discussed at the WG (and no significant new perspective
is brought up in the IETF LC). A pointer to an issue tracker (if any)
might help if the issues have already been discussed..
RFC 2119 does not require that conditions indicated by MUST, SHOULD, etc. be
detectable or enforceable by the receiver.
Unfortunately, it doesn't, but the specifications are still required
to be of sufficient clarity, see e.g., draft-iesg-discuss-criteria
section 3.1. A MUST or SHOULD statement which is not implementable
may fail that test.
At least right now, I don't see the point in responding to the rest of
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Ietf mailing list