ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] 8bit downgrades

2011-05-22 12:45:24
Dave CROCKER wrote:

On 5/19/2011 2:53 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
In RFC 2119 (the document that defines MUST, SHOULD, etc.), "MUST" does not 
mean
"vitally important" and "SHOULD" does not mean "really really important, but
less important than MUST". "MUST" means "you have to do this or you're not 
going
to interoperate." "SHOULD" means, "there are ways to not do this which will
still interoperate, but you had better know what those ways are and you 
better
be sure to do them, and if you don't, then you MUST NOT do this." That is,
"SHOULD" is equivalent to "MUST unless you know exactly what you are doing."

Correct, of course, and nicely said.

Quite clear from what it actually says:

   3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
      may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
      particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
      carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

This confusion about the meaning of normative language is one of the useful 
touchstones to some of the problems that have plagued the DKIM working group.

Among folks who haven't read the relevant bit of RFC 2119, the confusion 
isn't 
surprising.  However one would think that anyone with extended participation 
in 
a working group would do the homework of learning the basics of essential 
specification vocabulary, such as the meaning of normative language or at 
least 
the difference between relaying and forwarding.

The fact that erroneous definitions persist among among some who actually 
have 
read RFC 2119 suggests possible issues with reading comprehension, since the 
RFC 
language about this is rather simple, direct and clear.

Please refrain from passing the buck to the WG. The document editors are:

    D. Crocker (editor)
    Tony Hansen (editor)
    M. Kucherawy (editor)

If the WG was technically incapable as you are implying, then the 
*onus* was on the editors to make sure it was writing it correctly.

The problem in the WG was key cogs not following the charter, 
introducing deliberate out of scope concepts, mixing up the functional 
requirements with the technical specifications, doing global word 
replacements and not seeing if it was correct, removing/adding 
semantics and not seeing it fit the functional goals, confusing 
synergism with past or concurrent document productions, lost of WG 
interest participation with a resultant Consensus by Osmosis process, 
and frankly, all of which, all reflected a mark of poor leadership.

In this case (8BIT Downgrades), it is my view the SHOULD language is 
fine and was quite fitting the understood technical feasibility realities.


-- 
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com


_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>