[websec] #16: lack of explanatory text and no justifications for the normative language

["websec issue tracker" <[e-mail]>]

#16: lack of explanatory text and no justifications for the normative language

 Filing this issue on behalf, as submitted by Pete Resnik:

 (no objection to progressing *a* MIME sniffing draft in the IETF as an
 RFC.)
 "He does have an objection to progressing this MIME sniffing draft in its
 current form. It has an algorithm with no explanatory text and no
 justifications for any of the normative language it gives. That's not a
 protocol. Surely the author and other folks who think this work is
 important know *why* the algorithm is written the way it is. All that I am
 asking is for that knowledge be written in the document to explain. Then,
 if someone is in an environment that is different from the one anticipated
 by the draft, be it more restrictive or less, they can figure out what the
 right thing to do is and the draft can be updated appropriately. The
 current form simply doesn't allow that."


 [Tobias]
 To discuss or to do:
 add some more justification and explanation text at RFC2119 statements?

-- 
------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  tobias.gondrom@…  |      Owner:  draft-ietf-websec-mime-sniff@…
     Type:  defect            |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major             |  Milestone:
Component:  mime-sniff        |    Version:
 Severity:  Active WG         |   Keywords:
  Document                    |
------------------------------+--------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/16>
websec <http://tools.ietf.org/websec/>