#16: lack of explanatory text and no justifications for the normative language
Filing this issue on behalf, as submitted by Pete Resnik:
(no objection to progressing *a* MIME sniffing draft in the IETF as an
RFC.)
"He does have an objection to progressing this MIME sniffing draft in its
current form. It has an algorithm with no explanatory text and no
justifications for any of the normative language it gives. That's not a
protocol. Surely the author and other folks who think this work is
important know *why* the algorithm is written the way it is. All that I am
asking is for that knowledge be written in the document to explain. Then,
if someone is in an environment that is different from the one anticipated
by the draft, be it more restrictive or less, they can figure out what the
right thing to do is and the draft can be updated appropriately. The
current form simply doesn't allow that."
[Tobias]
To discuss or to do:
add some more justification and explanation text at RFC2119 statements?
--
------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Reporter: tobias.gondrom@… | Owner: draft-ietf-websec-mime-sniff@…
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: mime-sniff | Version:
Severity: Active WG | Keywords:
Document |
------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Ticket URL: <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/16>
websec <http://tools.ietf.org/websec/>
_______________________________________________
websec mailing list
websec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
