Hi - > From: "Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "'John C Klensin'" <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>; "'Dave Cridland'" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "'Pete Resnick'" <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <iesg@xxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > 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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf