David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 13:11 -0400, Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:
To be brutally honest, unless you are an executive or member of our
board of directors or an extremely important customer, I just don't care
that much from a business perspective if you don't get my email.
That's perfectly reasonable. I understand your perspective. But that is
not an acceptable perspective for this working group, which must concern
itself with interoperability of the system as a worldwide whole.
Without meaning disrespect by the precise choice of words in my
paraphrasing of your sentiment -- it is not acceptable for this working
group to codify a scheme whereby everyone can retreat into a corner and
say "I don't care if you don't get my mail, and I don't care that I
don't get yours".
Agreed, but I also don't think it acceptable to say that nobody is
allowed to make that choice either. A RECOMMENDED wording, in my mind,
would be much more fitting.
If you were to use a MUST NOT, what sort of limitation on it would you
propose? "Implementors MUST NOT use '-all' until the IETF has
determined that 80% of all forwarders are compatible with the
specification"? How would you make that determination?