John,
You chose to introduce an assertion of community consensus about the text.
I was merely asking for its basis, since I did spent the effort to
search, but couldn't find any record of it.
d/
On 7/21/2014 6:13 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Dave,
Let me try again. Assume, if it makes you happy, that I
maliciously inserted those sentences as an evil, malicious,
swipe at the two protocols. If they went in for -03 (I'll take
your word for it - I didn't check), then the community had circa
seven versions of the document in which the problem, however
significant or insignificant, could have been caught (my
recollection --I don't have the time to go back and check right
now-- is that it went into Last Call around -10). The issue
wasn't caught, or at least wasn't raised. And, if the text was,
as I think you are saying, unchanged after -03, certainly I
didn't somehow sneak it in as a private deal with the RFC Editor
after IESG approval.
So, there is, IMO, a choice. We can have a discussion about
what it means that the community consensus process didn't catch
and fix this (a discussion that would almost certainly affect
other individual submission standards track documents, even
updates of long-term specs). Or we can focus on figuring out
what the right wording should be so that I can get it into the
editing copy for 5321bis. I prefer the latter. YMMD.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp