On 08/05/2013 03:28, John C Klensin wrote:
...
>> I'll also point out that this has diddley-squat to do with
>> formal verification processes. Again as Mark Anrdrews points
>> out, we deployed something with a restriction that
>> subsequently turned out to be unnecessary, and now we're stuck
>> with it. Indeed, had formal verification processes been
>> properly used, they would have flagged any attempt to change
>> this as breaking interoperability.
>
> Also agreed.
To be clear, I'm no fan of formal verification either, but this
*is* a case where the IETF's lapse in formality has come back to
bite, and the Postel principle would have helped. Also, given the
original subject of the thread, I don't see how language editing
could have made any difference.
Brian
