Re: TECH-OMMISSION: Time Phasing Rules For Records Not Included In Core and Protocol (was RE: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?)

[Yakov Shafranovich <research@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Lentczner wrote:

> On Sep 3, 2004, at 1:00 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> > Recommend we add to protocol, page 24, a new paragraph 6.3:
> >
> > 6.3  Record Maintenance Time Requirements
> > ...
>
>
> I would recommend against such inclusions.  I agree that the information 
> given is sound advice for system administrators.  But, the technical 
> scheme is hardly dependent on following such advice, nor will ignoring 
> such advice lead to any major break down.  Such language belongs in a 
> How-To document, not the draft.

I am hesistant about not mentioning it at all since it is something that 
might come up often. Perhaps a separate BCP document can be referenced 
as part of the main draft. And while we are on that, is there a BCP 
document or is that planned for the future?

Yakov