Re: Last Call: SMTP Service Extension for Content Negotiation to Proposed Standard
Dave Crocker <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.fax |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
At 01:26 AM 7/4/2002 -0400, John C Klensin wrote: >That is a reasonable position. But I suggest that it implies >either that this material should go to Experimental, rather than >Proposed, or that the mechanism should be defined as applicable >to the cases that are understood and expanded only when the >implications of that expansion are better understood. Or... As nearly as I can tell, your position is that folks can raise a spectre of myriad, unspecified, abstract and unlikely concerns and then use that as a claim that a specification should not go to Proposed... Until this long list of negatives has been disproved. That's very creative. It also is at considerable odds with typical IETF criteria for advancement, John. It is also a heck of a good way to make sure that no proposal ever goes to Proposed. So, please explain what prompts such unique and extraordinary criteria for this simple and mundane proposal? d/ ---------- Dave Crocker <mailto:[email protected]> TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850