Re: Cautionary Period Straw Poll

[Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@xxxxxxx>]

At 4:21 PM +0100 1/30/02, Denis Pinkas wrote:
> Once again, I am not advocating the handling of ANY validation rule at the
> client, but instead the handling of ALL the validation rules at the server,
> hence the solution indicated just above is only to illustrate the problem,
> but not the solution I would like to go with.

It is somewhat distressing to see one of the editors of a 
requirements document actively ignoring the consensus of the Working 
Group on what should and should not go in the requirements document. 
If someone writing a protocol that meets these requirements wants to 
extend the protocol, they can. But the WG has pretty much said "it is 
not a requirement" and the requirements document should reflect that.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium