On 05/04/2011 08:51 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> Both documents refer to rfc4686, albeit only in the Informative >> References section. rfc4871 refers to rfc4686 only in section 8, >> rfc4871bis in section 8 as well as in section 1.1. >> > There are two main fallacies that appear to be behind the arguments of a few > people here: > > (1) RFC4686 is gospel. It isn't. Its status is "Informative" which means it > doesn't bind anyone to do anything. > > (2) A working group is not entitled to change its mind about something based > on experience. It is. > > Since RFC4686 was published, some of the consensus view of how this > does/should/might all work has shifted. There's nothing wrong with that. > > If someone wants to undertake the work of publishing an update because it's > seen as important, there are several of us that could assist with procedure, > though it's unlikely to be done by this working group at this point. >
My sense is that what Rolf is asking at its base is that the there is a conflict between the two documents and it's not clear why they exist, and which should be believed. If 4686 is inconsistent, then we should make a case for why it's wrong and document that. It may be process-wise "informational", but it served at the time as a guiding document for the creation of 4871, and had working group consensus at a time of extremely high scrutiny. We do not have anywhere close to that level of scrutiny now, and as such any changes made should be viewed with a very high level of caution and scepticism. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
