On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 19:18:19 +0100, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> The larger issue here is would anybody rush out to close this MUST. > I think that it is highly unlikely that anybody is going to care at this > point. That goes for *any* new MUST, IMO: unless it's really a serious > protocol endangering problem, it shouldn't be in the -bis document. Save > new MUST's for genuine emergencies. But it IS a serious protocol endangering problem. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: ...@clerew.man.ac.uk snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
