IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD

kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) Sat, 29 July 2000 13:52 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 JAA25399 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 09:52:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id JAA05371; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 09:52:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Sat, 29 Jul 2000 09:52:04 -0400
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id JAA05355; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 09:52:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (128.169.93.168 -> ASTRO.CS.UTK.EDU) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Sat, 29 Jul 2000 09:52:03 -0400
Received: (from moore@localhost) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) id JAA18639 for dist-drums@cs.utk.edu; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 09:52:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailout05.sul.t-online.com (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id HAA00535; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 07:28:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailout05.sul.t-online.com (194.25.134.82 -> mailout05.sul.t-online.com) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Sat, 29 Jul 2000 07:28:59 -0400
Received: from fmrl01.sul.t-online.de by mailout05.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 13IUnV-00030R-00; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 13:28:53 +0200
Received: from khms.westfalen.de (340048396503-0001@[62.155.166.4]) by fmrl01.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 13IUnR-206HTcC; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 13:28:49 +0200
Received: from root by khms.westfalen.de with local-bsmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 13IUnQ-000215-03 (Debian); Sat, 29 Jul 2000 13:28:48 +0200
Received: by khms.westfalen.de (CrossPoint v3.12d.kh5 R/C435); 29 Jul 2000 13:27:19 +0200
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 13:42:00 +0200
From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Message-ID: <7imE0SMHw-B@khms.westfalen.de>
In-Reply-To: <20000728144041.2983.qmail@cr.yp.to>
Subject: Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD
X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.12d.kh5 R/C435
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
References: <20000728144041.2983.qmail@cr.yp.to>
X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail.
Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.
X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1
X-Sender: 340048396503-0001@t-dialin.net
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>

djb@cr.yp.to (D. J. Bernstein)  wrote on 28.07.00 in <20000728144041.2983.qmail@cr.yp.to>:

> If you're violating section 6, chances are excellent that you're
> violating United States antitrust law. In the words of the Federal Trade
> Commission, standards must not impose ``construction requirements'' in
> place of ``performance requirements.''

From my memory, the "not following 6" issue is *not* about construction  
requirements, it's about performance requirements not (directly) on the  
wire - stuff like certain configuration options must (whould, whatever) be  
available, for example.

As far as I can tell, construction requirements have generally been  
avoided as much as humanly possible by drums.

And of course, while I suspect most participants of deums actually agree  
with this particular requirement, it is also quite obvious to me that the  
US law in question is completely irrelevant here - Internet standards  
cannot be subject to US legislation. The UN might have a case.

MfG Kai

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email