> Ned Freed wrote:
> > keep the MUST for aliases but lose it for lists? I could
> > live with that too but it would probably force a recycle.
> I'd opt for "better standard" instead of "better status"
> if these choices are in conflict.
I question whether they are in conflict. In particular, I question whether
removing this requirement will make this document significantly better, which
IMO is the appropriate criteria for assessing a change at this point in the
process.
> The 2821bis / 2822upd
> procedure is somewhat odd, first John insisted on doing
> this simultaneously, and I thought that's not necessary.
> Now I think he was always right, but what we really do
> is out of sync: Likely 2822upd will pull NO-WS-CTL, or
> move it to its "obs" chapter.
> But the 2821bis in Last Call has a normative reference to
> 2822, not 2822upd, and so it inherits obscure NO-WS-CTL
> not limited to (non-existing) domain literals, it also
> has cruft like DEL and horrors like NUL in a few places.
I would prefer to have a reference to 2822upd, but I suspect this decision
dates back to when it wasn't clear that 2822bis was going to get updated more
or less at the same time.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
