Hector Santos wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hector,
You are correct that there is no MUST NOT. But the fact
that we excised the MUST is significant. I interpret that
as follows:
- Its ok for someone to develop a proposal for how nomail
could be included, so long as it doesn't get in the way
of the meeting the MUST & SHOULD requirements, which we
do first (that's sort-of what PHB suggested yesterday, I
think);
- its not ok to hold up work on the basis that nomail
isn't included.
Later in your mail you seem to say that there was some
ambiguity when we decided the above. I totally disagree
with that - the mail archive is very clear.
First, I disagree. It wasn't very clear. The mere fact you are still
having this issue, proves the point.
What I see happening is folks who lost an argument trying to
re-open it.
There were decisions made offlist and in the chat room where there was
clearly mis-representation.
I've no idea how you can make that assertion. It is incorrect.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html