> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hector > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 5:56 PM > To: Michael StJohns > Cc: IETF Discussion > Subject: Re: 2119bis > > Good points, but the subtleties are too wide spread to generalize, > especially dealing with integrated protocols and now there are > boundary layers related issues. > > For example: > > DKIM MUST|SHOULD|MAY validate its input stream for illegal > multiple 8222.From fields because this has been shown to cause > a potential security exploit. > > [...] So this protracted (and, in my view, hijacked) sound-and-fury thread about concerns with interpretation of RFC2119 and the rough consensus process, and hints about an activist Area Director, is really just a platform to vent your frustration with a decision made in a working group where you were in the minority? The issue to which you're referring closed months ago. After a long battle, some compromise text was reached that included some of what you advocated, which during IESG evaluation drew a DISCUSS and it was rolled back before being approved for publication. This is all recorded in the archives. It really is time to move on. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf