On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:52:09PM -0800, Ned Freed allegedly wrote: > The real question is why you're so opposed to making it a MUST. If in fact
Here's my guess. I don't think Arvel is opposed. As an implementor he just wants to know what code to write. As a pragmatist, I think Arvel is right, as an observer of wannabe RFC police, I think Ned is right. Personally, I'm a bit amazed at the minutia. Surely everyone accepts that an interop core is essential and in IETF parlance that implies an appropriate set of MUSTs or their logical equivalence. My suspicion is that we have violent agreement. Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
