Hi Frank,
At 08:22 17-08-2011, Frank Ellermann wrote:
ACK, I interpret that as "John doesn't like RFC 6186", otherwise he
would find a way to mention it somewhere. I had my share of "let's
try discovery for NNTP" elsewhere, and won't mention it again here.
The decision is based on input from both editors and other YAM WG
participants [1]. Alexey also suggested adding the reference to RFC
6186 [2]. As I mentioned previously, given that the draft is
intended to be published as Full Standard, the maturity of a
dependency has to be considered. The reference would have been
added, assuming the YAM WG agreed, if there was an interoperability report.
But referencing RFC 5068 (BCP 134) would be good, if readers arrive
at a "the IETF really wants this" conclusion.
I'll make a note of this as part of the Last Call comments. The
determination of "the IETF really wants this" reference would be
based on the feedback received.
Oops, right, but the "historical context" in John's drafts is often
very important for me, because I have no idea what used to be a say
FTP design problem before 1995. Presumably others are in a similar
position with SUBMIT issues before 2010, and a pointer to BCP 134 in
4409bis appendix A can be helpful for anybody trying to reconstruct
"the history of email RFCs" in the future.
For what it is worth, John and Randy worked on
draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis. BCP 134 was published after RFC 4409 and
it focused on Triple-A whereas RFC 2476 also provided for limited
changes to a message when it is submitted and a degree of separation
for implementing local policies.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00636.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00682.html
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
