IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this question [was Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again]

Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com> Tue, 08 January 2013 23:54 UTC

Return-Path: <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC62B11E80CC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 15:54:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HQXuZwBpuAGM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 15:54:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com (mail-ob0-f169.google.com [209.85.214.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE8B911E80AE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 15:54:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id v19so1552559obq.28 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:54:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=softarmor.com; s=google; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=YNhgWsu8ps8SfFFcvD37nretIx1ypeRPKFaRnootDG4=; b=WYn/6hw3SlP0Yxk8LFVb7bR9klBII6SUwqjoqRiG9LkQS1oxklOiHH7Xk2cZguZ49X YOaJRLTRd4HPNNLp5xuqOQr4bGToPLcEN5JkaR0IhOHkwISOydTL4f4VU+OtSslVm7Yt d6Vko5NMeUm3Lho+fDP+lLWwNeKUFyg/nIBdI=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=YNhgWsu8ps8SfFFcvD37nretIx1ypeRPKFaRnootDG4=; b=cf9/ocrEDDrGsIeh9UhMhhuxTGcq5+lgMF/X1WI4sZSPrVLeJx9Gwo95dwaNov8Sxj N9vcTtKCivvH4FftNaulloP5wXDOCIF3zw2mSq5AsCYF0zyNJtNzAuR/IN9dFaR/jXxW /KrtEmA9ac76x9qj7y2NOgNroVouHtuK3pCW4D9xJmlqZnPQ254+MHtPjVYPO8F3mDYQ sE7Z2Mz+oA0HntVqQxIqpMO70N1zneS4MfY7KAg7jK7ZqyhM9aQM7uzVZCOf21BFnkAE QU8EvX0TH/U9PB7y1xm/n+Jk1YQiYnrxTMpMlNrGbiG9ssyoJ2izLj4gQT6GS8t7hfhB /GBg==
X-Received: by 10.182.69.71 with SMTP id c7mr45812510obu.92.1357689277371; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:54:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.115] (cpe-72-181-157-19.tx.res.rr.com. [72.181.157.19]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id aw4sm35623950oec.9.2013.01.08.15.54.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:54:36 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Subject: Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this question [was Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again]
From: Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ88PJ4yCNp+6TSBFYNn_QMOZM_BFB4p3nmFy4R3XeApYLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:54:35 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3D453E57-252A-467C-B64A-6671C85FD4BB@softarmor.com>
References: <CADnDZ8_GgVeapUKefFMqOvwOo00X8_rFDWMR0vb-Zvu_p=yT3A@mail.gmail.com> <a062408a2cd10003cf574@10.0.1.3> <CADnDZ88BVr6wj_RTGh8bMEkUt-sobWuDH-v0wyHVabSETVHrkA@mail.gmail.com> <CADnDZ88PJ4yCNp+6TSBFYNn_QMOZM_BFB4p3nmFy4R3XeApYLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnK6yxpQOdheE5UqPOEPPv2YRf5f1n68aIlCzcB8Z8SKwyMc1xlNwmhjikWhc6ulaH/updz
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 23:54:38 -0000

On Jan 8, 2013, at 12:57 PM, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:

>> but the question of
>> error in process is; does the RFC lack communication requirement with
>> the community?
>> 
> 
> Sorry if not clear. I mean that as some participant are requesting a
> scientific approach to struggling with 2119 (i.e. thread-subject),
> does that mean in some RFCs the use or not use (i.e. we see that
> participant use different approaches to follow the 2119) that it may
> add communication confuse with some of community?
> 

I'm absolutely certain that some of our community is confused about something related to this thread. Given the absence of information that would help in a decision, might preference would be just to pick one, and provide a stick for hitting those who do it the other way.

--
Dean

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email