Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-06

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 13:26 -0700 Dave Crocker
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>...
>>>> A single sentence summarizing what benefit is achieved with
>>>> the change, along with a couple of usage examples, would go
>>>> a long way towards showing how this update helps in
>>>> practical ways.
>>> 
>>> I could live with a single sentence, but I strongly object to
>>> the inclusion
>>> of examples, for the reasons I gave in my original response.
>> 
>> Would a possible middle ground be to include a single
>> well-crafted sentence with an informative citation of
>> draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade?  That document does contain
>> examples and an explanation of that particular use case.
> 
> I thought Ned's goal was -- quite reasonably, IMO -- to not be
> dependent upon EAI for this general-purpose enhancement.

The problem is that all of the practical (i.e., not constructed
just for the document) examples we have, especially with the
advice to not use these group addresses except under special
circumstances, are associated with EAI.  So, as soon as one says
something equivalent to "summarize the benefit and provide use
cases" one either becomes dependent on EAI for examples (which
is not what we usually mean by "dependent") or is constructing
works of fancy or speculation.

The other approach --and the one I think Ned is advocating
although he can speak for himself-- is to make this change
primarily because embedding the prohibition on using groups in
backward-pointing addresses in the syntax has outlived its
usefulness if, indeed, it was ever wise.  Instead, we end up
with the syntax restriction eliminated and rather general
use/applicability advice.  It seems to me that ought to be
sufficient.

    best,
    john