Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Hector Santos followed up Crocker'ss passing of the buck: >> >> Please refrain from passing the buck to the WG. The document editors >> are: >> >> D. Crocker (editor) >> Tony Hansen (editor) >> M. Kucherawy (editor) >> >> If the WG was technically incapable as you are implying, then the >> *onus* was on the editors to make sure it was writing correctly. > > Given that it's been pointed out the use of SHOULD in this case > is entirely appropriate, I'm happy to accept blame on behalf of > the other authors for getting it right.
With all due respect, for the record, actually it was the original editors/authors: E. Allman J. Callas M. Delany M. Libbey J. Fenton M. Thomas with the April 2006 draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 original text. Updated in August 2006 base-05 draft update to clarify the 2nd paragraph in particular regarding Unix (LF) vs DOS (CRLF) translation requirements, and it (correctly) has remained that way since then. This unfortunate issue is with new editors trying to change it and then labeling the WG for not understanding RFC2119 as a reason. -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html