Re: applicability statement vs technical specification

Meng Weng Wong <[email protected]> wrote:
> Perhaps we should put forth an applicability statement separate from the
> technical specification.  I focused on design because an RFC is not the
> place for rhetoric; it is a specification, not an exhortation.

  Many RFC's include a statement of the problem they're trying to
solve.  Many also include a paragraph or two of rhetoric, as to why
this particular design was chosen.  I see such statements as within
the scope of this work.

  I don't expect the problem statement and rhetoric to be the majority
of the draft.  However, since they motivate the design, they should be
included in the document.

> I don't see the adoption process as a story of convincing people that
> we're right; I see it as a story of giving what some of the people want
> to those people that want it.  After all, this is a voluntary standard.

  As seen on the main list, there is significant opposition to
allowing people to implement a voluntary standard.  There is
significant opposition to giving people a standard by which they can
make more informed decisions about email messages.  I would like to
address those oppositions in the draft.

  If nothing else, addressing those concerns means that we've
acknowledged them, and "stolen their thunder".  It means that our
reply to much of the opposition can be "Yes, we know that.  We said it
in the draft.  Do you have anything *new* to offer?"

  Alan DeKok.