From: Kent Landfield (kent@landfield.com)
Date: Tue Jan 07 2003 - 20:45:26 CST
# On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 18:26, Dave Crocker wrote:
# > Folks,
# >
# > The most amusing things about this line of discussion is how similar it
# > sounds to claims made during the MIME discussions, 10 years ago.
#
# Yes, Usefor's biggest obstacle has been having to wait for the
# conflicting, broken, or simply inadequate email standards to catch up.
#
# We're still waiting, and it's not clear things are actually improving.
#
# That's the biggest reason why Usefor has taken the tack it has.
#
# --Dave
Yeah right... The real problem is that people didn't keep the focus
on the group's charter... Waiting to catch up isn't listed, backward
compatibility is.
From the WG charter:
Description
The Goal of this working group is to publish a standards-track successor
to RFC 1036 that with particular attention to backward compatibility,
formalizes best current practice and best proposed practice. The Group
shall also aid and/or oversee the production of other Usenet related
Internet Drafts and Standards.
Why do we need to solve the world's problems now and in this document ?
Focus on the backward compatibility and existing published standards and
move on. This issue can be dealt with in an subsequent document as the
dust settles a bit more. No need to wait and wait and wait for a successor
to 1036.
...sigh...
-- Kent Landfield Phone: 1-817-545-2502 Email: kent@landfield.com http://www.landfield.com/ Search the Usenet FAQ Archive at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ Search the RFC/FYI/STD/BCP Archive at http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/