W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > May 2001

Re: Intelligence in standards-based software

From: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 08:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>, discuss@apps.ietf.org
Message-id: <01K35RYN1SGQ002XZW@mauve.mrochek.com>
> >Incidentially, it would have been nice to include the RFC 1766 text in RFC
> >2046, however, RFC 2046 is a revision of a draft standard (RFC 1521)
> >and at the
> >time RFC 1766 was only proposed. So I couldn't add it without
> >forcing a recycle
> >at proposed. Heck, it could not even be referenced, since such a reference
> >would obviously be normative.

> I disagree that the reference would have necessarily been normative.

You can disagree all you want and I might even agree with your position
somewhat. However, this sort of thing is up to the IESG as a whole, and at the
time when I did the revision there was substantial pushback on even including
things that were widely, but not universally, implemented in the document. I
actually don't recall whether or not I proposed including an appropriately
worded reference to RFC 1766 at the time, but had I done so I don't think there
was any chance it would have made it. And to be frank, given the scope of the
revisions done in RFC 2045-2049 I had a lot other stuff to worry about at this
point.

> I assume that 1766 had at least *one* implementation when it came out.

Actually, I doubt that it did. If memory serves, it was something of a last
minute addition to RFC 1766.

> When we have new implementation experience, certainly it
> wouldn't cause a recycle at proposed to include a "Note:" of warning
> indicating that the "best-is-last" approach doesn't work with some
> uses and that implementors would do well to account for this by
> providing user interaction.

> > Given that the text in RFC 1766 about this approach has been dropped in RFC
> > 3066 due to lack of interest on the part of implementors, I see no chance
> > of adding it to MIME itself during a move from draft to full standard.

> This, on the other hand, might be true; I don't know if it's legit to
> make the change going to full standard. Hey, wait a minute....aren't
> you the one who decides this stuff? :-)

I understand you intend this to be humorous, but I think this actually deserves
a serious response. When I present one of my own documents to the IESG for
approval I am automatically disqualified from acting as a reviewer.
Additionally, anything I or any other IESG member presents tends to be reviwed
much more carefully than stuff coming in from other sources. RIghtly or
wrongly, the IESG is quite sensitive to charges of favoritism, and if anything
tends to err in the other direction.

I only wish I didn't speak from experience on this particular point.

				Ned
Received on Friday, 4 May 2001 11:52:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 March 2006 20:11:28 GMT