On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Frank Ellermann wrote:
It is completely outside of its technical standards-setting
mission.
With that idea you could also claim that RfCs should not talk
about postmaster@ or abuse@. This cannot work. I don't care
who publishs / maintains these RfCs, maybe ICANN should do it.
I happen to agree with people who want to separate policy from
protocol specification. But I disagree that such policy-like
recommendations as that its good to have "abuse@" mailbox have
no business with IETF. If I understand correctly IETF thinking is
that such recommendations should not go into STD track but into BCP.
As such if RFC1032 is being considered for moving to historic (which
may need to happen but I see no reason to do it right now and I think
it would be difficult because many other non-historic RFCs depend on
it), some of what is there that people think is relevant should be
considered for new BCP RFC.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william@xxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf