Re: Comments requested on recent appeal to the IESG

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk at sendmail.com>
To: Doug Otis <doug.mtview at gmail.com>
Cc: John Levine <johnl at iecc.com>, ietf at ietf.org, iesg at ietf.org
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:32:13 -0800 (PST)
In-reply-to: <F27ADB9E-E2F1-4B19-971A-97CDDE3FF0FC at gmail.com>
References: <20090220094413.88313.qmail at simone.iecc.com> <F27ADB9E-E2F1-4B19-971A-97CDDE3FF0FC at gmail.com>

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:11:26 -0800, Doug Otis wrote:
> > This appeal boils down to "someone might misuse it so don't  
> > standardize it."  Is there any standard to which someone couldn't  
> > have made a similar objection?
> 
> The appeal is in regard to offering recipients potentially misleading  
> information where its source is intentionally omitted thus preventing  
> reputation evaluation by the MUA as required by section 4.1.

This assertion, which is the premise behind much of the logic within the
appeal and its varied antecedents, is manifestly false.  The draft not
only does NOT establish that requirement, it goes to some length to
suggest doing so is a bad idea.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Comments requested on recent appeal to the IESG
  - From: Doug Otis

References:
- Re: Comments requested on recent appeal to the IESG
  - From: John Levine
- Re: Comments requested on recent appeal to the IESG
  - From: Doug Otis

Prev by Date: Version of xml2rfc to produce drafts with new pre5378 IPR clause
Next by Date: Re: [xml2rfc] [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to the Pre-5378 Problem
Previous by thread: Re: Comments requested on recent appeal to the IESG
Next by thread: Re: Comments requested on recent appeal to the IESG
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: Comments requested on recent appeal to the IESG

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.