RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement

["D. J. Bernstein" <djb at cr.yp.to>]

The DRUMS draft 821/822 replacements, smtpupd and msg-fmt, make many
demands upon implementors for reasons other than interoperability.

I don't know whether this market interference is a violation of federal
law. I do know that it is a violation of RFC 2119, section 6.

I pointed out ten examples on the DRUMS mailing list three months ago.
DRUMS chair Chris Newman, who has a financial interest in the DRUMS
results, denied that any of the examples were in violation of RFC 2119.

I forwarded the messages to Scott Bradner, author of RFC 2119. Scott has
now had a chance to review msg-fmt; he says he agrees with me.

Meanwhile, Newman is attempting to rush the DRUMS documents out the door
by the end of August:

   * He is interrupting discussions on the mailing list by announcing
     that he does not consider various issues ``compelling enough'' to
     ``risk'' a delay in publication.

   * He is applying the same subjective rule to the agenda of the next
     DRUMS meeting. There are dozens of issues not yet resolved on the
     mailing list; the current agenda lists just two of them.

It won't be possible to fix the RFC 2119 violations, or any of the other
problems that various implementors have identified in the DRUMS drafts,
under these conditions.

---Dan