ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

2008-06-20 12:06:02
Hi -

From: "Debbie Garside" <debbie(_at_)ictmarketing(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
To: "'John C Klensin'" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>; "'Dave Cridland'" 
<dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net>
Cc: "'Pete Resnick'" <presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>; 
<iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 11:54 AM
Subject: RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
...
Sorry but we have to agree to differ on this.  Nothing personal but probably
due to my ISO experience, I am more for going with standards rather than
finding ways around them with MAYs and SHOULDs.  If there is a
recommendation within a standard IMHO it should be followed.  This is just
my humble opinion - you are welcome to yours.
...
Wrt the author's intention for publishing BCP32, it is irrelevant unless
documented within the BCP itself.  We cannot go back to the author for each
BCP or RFC and ask what was the intended use.  The document, as with any
standard, has to stand alone.
...

Both these arguments get back to the question of the applicability of
a standard or BCP.  Although we are sometimes rather clear on the
scope of applicability for a particular specification, more often things
are more or less deliberately left open ended.  Whether it makes
sense to use SNMPv3 as a file transfer protocol (as in RFC 2592)
is left to the user's judgement.  The existence of a potentially applicable
BCP or standard doesn't imply that it MUST be used - the WG needs to
investigate it, and then make the engineering decision whether
that specification is the right tool for the job at hand.

Randy

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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