rfc 2119 violation
"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@koobera.math.uic.edu> Sun, 10 August 1997 06:38 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa24917; 10 Aug 97 2:38 EDT
Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTPid CAA25166; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 02:36:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id XAA13146 for ietf-822-bks; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 23:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (qmailr@koobera.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.247]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA13142 for <ietf-822@imc.org>; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 23:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 24150 invoked by uid 666); 10 Aug 1997 06:09:48 -0000
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 06:09:48 -0000
Message-ID: <19970810060948.24149.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@koobera.math.uic.edu>
To: ietf-822@imc.org
Subject: rfc 2119 violation
Sender: owner-ietf-822@imc.org
Precedence: bulk
I asked Scott Bradner, the author of RFC 2119, about Newman's ``MUST be delivered to that primary address by default'' requirement. Scott wrote back after reviewing Newman's spec. ``In looking at the text I think you are correct in detail---i.e. this is not a case of ensuring interoperability between systems so it does violate the caution in rfc 2119,'' he says. ``It seems like the author is trying to ensure consistent user-level behavior, a reasonable goal, but the use of MUST seems out of place.'' ---Dan Set up a new mailing list in a single command. http://pobox.com/~djb/ezmlm.html
- rfc 2119 violation D. J. Bernstein