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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]