Re: [Fwd]: 2822 implementation report request

Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>    
> 
>>Unlike the case of ABNF, where one settled for
>>"implementation = parser", and documented "use",
>>I don't think a fellow spec is going to be counted.....
> 
> 
> The 2234 report counted references, the difference
> here could be that RFC 2822 is not only yet another
> normative reference in RFC.ietf-usefor-usefor, we
> looked at numerous details down to obscure topics
> like "semantic content" of a <quoted-string>, the
> number of summaries, or the wonders of <obs-phrase>. 
> 
> 
>>but if anyone has a conformant implementation of
>>-usefor in his news system, that could also be a
>>2822 implementation to report....
> 
> 
> That would be of course better, but I'd guess that
> only IANA "implements" unnumbered RFCs.

If the draft document this group got out the door, (I won't
say produced) counts as an "implementation" of a standards
track IETF document, then I am very much misled about
what "implementation of a standard" means.

Based on Ellerman's meaning, I move we translate usefor
into Spanish, French, and Italian, declare them interoperable
implementations, and promptly notify the IETF of the milestone.

It really did feel like Kobayashi Maru simulation all those
years. It would be a fitting conclusion to change the exit
criteria.

- Forrest

P.S. I cannot believe I still read and care enough about this
attempt and effort to respond.

Anyone else still out there?