From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 20:55:15 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <40B7D092.6040307@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>
>
>>Charles Lindsey wrote:
>>
>>>Contrary to your claims, last year's WG discussions did NOT reach any
>>>conclusion (our Chair ceased to participate despite being asked to rule on
>>>a way forward).
>
>
>>That is incorrect. The Chair clearly ruled that the text in question had
>>no place in the syntax & semantics document (the definition of the USEFOR
>>document). He also ruled that failing some credible connection between
>>"Re: " and some protocol issue (specifically excluding display), that it
>>was unsuitable for the network operations document (the second of the two
>>Standards Track documents that we were directed to produce). No such
>>connection was ever produced.
>
>
> I am sorry, but you are simply not telling the truth.
>
> There was no final ruling made.
The public record of this WG supports my claim [as I write this, the
landfield.com site has been down most of the day -- I placed a telephone
call to Kent; the information below should suffice to identify the referenced
messages when the site comes back up]:
The co-chairs set the framework, complete with milestones and a timetable:
Message-Id: <p06000b0aba99032e591c@[216.43.25.67]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 08:04:16 -0800
From: Andrew Gierth <andrew@erlenstar.demon.co.uk>,
Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Subject: The plan of action
WG chair confirms that "Re: " is out of scope of USEFOR (document #1,
purely syntax & semantics):
Message-Id: <p06001005bad744647d97@[216.43.25.67]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 16:43:05 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: the "Re:" (was Re: Differences between RFC 2822 and Usefor)
WG chair reaffirms that "Re: " is out of scope for the USEFOR document
after several weeks more of discussion, and frustration:
Message-Id: <p06001418bb0bc62b2f71@[216.43.25.67]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:37:56 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Subject-header and "Re: "
After another week and a half, the WG chair sets "*No* mention of 'Re: ' in
syntax/semantics document" (emphasis in original) policy in very firm tones,
reaffirms "network interoperability" as the topic of document #2, leaves open
the possibility of discussion of "Re: " in document #2 (if justified). He also
discusses "well-reasoned arguments" vs. "a screaming huge crowd" and "consensus":
Message-Id: <p06001700bb18f058b6ef@[216.43.25.67]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:06:53 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Subject-header and "Re: "
Specific statement about strength of terms to be used in document #2 (and
reaffirmation that there *is* to be a document #2) [document #1 having been
already clearly ruled out]:
Message-Id: <p06001702bb1cf17420d6@[216.43.25.67]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:31:12 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Subject-header and "Re: "
More clarification about consensus and voting, some discussion of possible
topics w.r.t. "Re: " in document #3:
Message-Id: <p06001709bb1d212f50f1@[216.43.25.67]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:19:09 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Subject-header and "Re: "
After some additional discussion regarding document #2 (document #1 having
been ruled upon), I challenged proponents to come of with an example of an
interoperability issue which did not involve the user (per that discussion):
Message-ID: <3EF9B5FF.60708@Sonietta.blilly.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:47:27 -0400
From: Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Subject-header and "Re: "
Not one such example of a non-user interoperability issue was raised.
> The "connection" was produced then, and it has been produced many times in
> recent discussions. Shortly put, if the USEFOR draft does not make some
> clear ruling on the use of back-references, much currently working
> software is suddenly going to stop working. That is an interoperability
> issue (or it causes harm, if you prefer).
Nonsense; display issues have been ruled out of consideration by the WG
chair during the discussions last year, as documented above. And no non-display
interoperability issues have ever been raised.