Re: Should we update an RFC if people refuse t o implement parts of it ?
Sam Varshavchik <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.smtp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dave Crocker writes: > If the operational industry has voted with its code and clearly prefers A- > labels, than the SHOULD is an especially counter-productive choice, since it > creates debate about the specification where, really, it has no benefit. I > suspect MAY is the better choice. It gives permission and even implicit > encouragement, but eliminates the standards tension caused by not using U- > labels. The current preference is for A-labels. But after SMTPUTF8 becomes customary: at some point it will make sense to interpret SHOULD using its original meaning, here. _______________________________________________ ietf-smtp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 833 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEMWrVnbBKLOeG9ifkazpiviedvyUFAmC6o9wACgkQazpivied vyU1VQ//fPo/Qo/UJPC2Ryuyq9JEtZUKRs40PBqsyfIFx9ukza0y/KEQ2/IBs1Kf 59IUwepo9PBpc+OOejN7HbQqtLYPi5zE2OwFRXprv8R9m78V/jM9FjUkbBc3AwmV pEBnD0wOIUBOeLUvfL4FRGlQXgKfOUtZX8aCmLBpxzHuFITWE4V8dgQGcybywfwW i1Vv8Y/IpR0ySN9l9iTNh6k9J431w7Nt2QXeiL0WBOr/0Rov9NKYpkK1DVAe+Uyi B7BR3Pka6wC87nWZEYN3OSS+3cWy+x54BbkSMLwljNGER45Y7GgyTwT8kEtuSZeZ w7I94FqW7x8PIwVcTigJ177871+dBx9qfEvwI+EKsqdjBy/KxgWFXAw5RiR9VqsJ Vqqzvnw63Usm+KHKeaSV6VMdkq5VoINNYWuJ5cs6HG+FglcgxjIJDBWNxNOjsuA1 b3mnysmy3XbDf7WSpnBhd6Q2ZFc1BQGzvaUAkhQI4uLLQaRL9LR11PCxXKG7NjCm t/LlUEU15Am3+GvAC8M+h7RlMVp0MFUrSJkO2Z97pP7tZOMkw7nRSfrvjw/Kk5Vr cRkIvb3cW+IwzFgokdD7imfimF1FDfGCATH1tyIGhp1Z4t1fq5rnpYPAjADkUptb s9eRci4iA0p4Af8wMLbeBapIIkw/OS+8D0Dl8oyFtqPECY1CL/Q= =fj85 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----