Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "Debbie Garside" <debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk>
> To: "'John C Klensin'" <john-ietf at jck.com>; "'Dave Cridland'" <dave at cridland.net>
> Cc: "'Pete Resnick'" <presnick at qualcomm.com>; <iesg at ietf.org>; <ietf at ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 11:54 AM
> Subject: RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
...
> Sorry but we have to agree to differ on this.  Nothing personal but probably
> due to my ISO experience, I am more for going with standards rather than
> finding ways around them with MAYs and SHOULDs.  If there is a
> recommendation within a standard IMHO it should be followed.  This is just
> my humble opinion - you are welcome to yours.
...
> Wrt the author's intention for publishing BCP32, it is irrelevant unless
> documented within the BCP itself.  We cannot go back to the author for each
> BCP or RFC and ask what was the intended use.  The document, as with any
> standard, has to stand alone.
...

Both these arguments get back to the question of the applicability of
a standard or BCP.  Although we are sometimes rather clear on the
scope of applicability for a particular specification, more often things
are more or less deliberately left open ended.  Whether it makes
sense to use SNMPv3 as a file transfer protocol (as in RFC 2592)
is left to the user's judgement.  The existence of a potentially applicable
BCP or standard doesn't imply that it MUST be used - the WG needs to
investigate it, and then make the engineering decision whether
that specification is the right tool for the job at hand.

Randy

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf