Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com> Sat, 29 July 2000 23:34 UTC

Received: from cs.utk.edu (CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05558 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:34:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id TAA01749; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:34:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:34:43 -0400
Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id TAA01726; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:34:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from joy.songbird.com (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id TAA01710; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:34:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from joy.songbird.com (208.184.79.7 -> joy.songbird.com) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:34:41 -0400
Received: from free.88.106.bayarea.net (free.88.106.bayarea.net [205.219.88.106]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA19005; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 16:34:22 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: joy.songbird.com: free.88.106.bayarea.net [205.219.88.106] didn't use HELO protocol
Message-Id: <4.3.2.20000729163022.00ccf330@mail.bayarea.net>
X-Sender: dcrocker@mail.bayarea.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 16:34:07 -0700
To: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Subject: Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD
Cc: Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>, drums@cs.utk.edu
In-Reply-To: <22553.964905897@mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
References: <Your message of "Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:44:08 +0100." <200007281944.UAA10267@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>

At 07:24 AM 7/30/00 +1000, Robert Elz wrote:
>If anything like that were to be considered as a requirement for the IETF
>it would have to be agreed by the IETF first - and the way that would be
>done would be by going through the poisson WG first, and then an IETF
>last call after that.   None of that has happened for any suggestion in
>any way related to use of 2119, it hasn't even been hinted at.


Just to underscore this a bit more:  The IETF makes firm and universal 
rules that apply to all working groups, concerning working group PROCESS.

There is very damn little about working group technical CONTENT (or even 
specification syntax) that is mandated.  (I'm tempted to say that none is, 
but exceptions have started to occur, like pressure for strong security and 
use of unicode, but even these have some flexibility.)

Working Groups are presumed to be competent to decide the details 
appropriate for their situation.  Area Directors should, must and do 
intervene when a working group is out of control.  But those are -- 
unfortunately not as rare as one might like -- boundary conditions.

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA