On Mon Mar 2 16:05:16 2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Dave Cridland wrote:
On Mon Mar 2 15:49:09 2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
For the content that overlaps in RFC5322 and RFC5321, which one
is authoritative?
>
Whichever is cited by the document referencing the content, of
course.
That sounds pretty unstable, since it produces context-dependent
resolution.
It is unstable, yes, but I'm not convinced that's a bad thing - it's
stable per document, at least.
What it means is that if a document says "Relay (as defined in
[MAIL-ARCH])", or a more generic and sweeping "Terms are as defined
in [MAIL-ARCH]", then it's absolutely obvious which definition is
being used, and if there is doubt, the reference can be checked.
That the terms differ is, of course, important to resolve in and of
itself, but I'm not clear that a definition of a term - which *will*
need a citation and reference anyway - needs to have a particular
definition set in stone right here and now.
To get consensus behind a single definition requires rather a lot of
work, and one simple method of finding the consensus (if one exists)
is to have two definitions out there and see which is cited in
practise.
Alternately, we could have a public food fight between Klensin,
Resnick, and Crocker. If this does happen in SF, can someone
ensure it gets filmed for posterity?
Pete usually has too much class to engage in these, publicly. John
and I get into public food fights all the time, using food for
thought
Yes, well those aren't half as much fun. Don't use food for thought,
use custard pies.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net -
xmpp:dwd(_at_)dave(_dot_)cridland(_dot_)net
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf