On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 19:18:19 +0100, Michael Thomas <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
wrote:
The larger issue here is would anybody rush out to close this MUST.
I think that it is highly unlikely that anybody is going to care at this
point. That goes for *any* new MUST, IMO: unless it's really a serious
protocol endangering problem, it shouldn't be in the -bis document. Save
new MUST's for genuine emergencies.
But it IS a serious protocol endangering problem.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html