--On 10. desember 2007 15:22 -0800 Ned Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2. The mailing lists described in 2821 are very simple redistribution
>> lists, as opposed to the "fairly sophisticated forums for group
>> communication" [2919] described in these documents. For simple
>> aliasing an
Ned said most of what I wanted to, but a couple of little points:
On 12/11/07 at 1:19 AM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
The spec. could note that there are mutilating^Wcomplex lists
violating the MUST. It could also say SHOULD, an RFC on standards
track might be a good excuse to violate this S
Iain Calder wrote:
their descendants. For example, suppose a completely
different protocol called IEP (Internet Email Protocol)
arises in the future and, due to its vastly superior
characteristics, becomes the dominant mail transport
system. SMTP would then become historic and IEP would
need
*>
*> I foresee another problem, however. SMTP remains the
*> Internet's email protocol, after decades of use and
*> extending. Yet things could have turned out differently.
*> Protocols *can* get pushed aside by challengers that aren't
*> their descendants. For example, suppose a
--On 10. desember 2007 15:22 -0800 Ned Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. The mailing lists described in 2821 are very simple redistribution
lists, as opposed to the "fairly sophisticated forums for group
communication" [2919] described in these documents. For simple
aliasing and redistributi
--On 11. desember 2007 06:22 -0500 Iain Calder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think that, for implementors and adopters alike, a
single, absolute definition is too simplistic a view to
be meaningful in today's world. Merely renaming the STD
series won't solve the problem of deciding when/if the
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> On a lexical level I would suggest that the default mnemonic be
> IETF-[-]- where the specifier is optional.
I expect specialists will continue to prefer the raw RFC
numbers and I doubt that others (including many decision
makers) care about working group acronyms.