From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 21:36:47 CDT
Henry Spencer wrote:
> On Sat, 1 May 2004, Bruce Lilly wrote:
>
>>...At least John, I, and Eivind have gone on record that Charles'
>>text has no place in document #1 (USEFOR) but that its subject matter might
>>be appropriate for document #3. Yet Charles has steadfastly refused to
>>give *any* consideration to that...
>
>
> Instead, he's been trying to get you to accept a compromise, because
> various other people (e.g., me) think some discussion of the matter *does*
> belong in document #1
Neither you nor anybody else in this WG has given one shred of rationale
based on syntax or semantics for inclusion of any version of Charles'
proposed text in a purely syntax and semantics document (i.e. document #1).
> -- i.e., there seems no possibility of achieving
> consensus using your approach, and Charles realizes that and has been
> acting accordingly.
I have no idea what *you* mean by "[my] approach". My approach is to
address a Standards Track syntax and semantics document produced under
the auspices of the IETF as an engineering effort. That means that
the document has to be self-consistent, consistent with the Internet
Architecture (RFC 1958) and other relevant RFCs, and based on sound
engineering principles. Objections to specific parts of Charles'
proposed text have been explained in detail, and alternatives have
been suggested (the simplest of which is to simply refer to the
definition in RFC 2822, which is consistent with what our co-chairs
stated ("conform to 2822 and MIME syntax") in
<p06000b0aba99032e591c@[216.43.25.67]>, posted to the WG mailing
list 50 weeks ago). Charles has ignored the substantive objections
and refused to consider the alternatives proposed.
> The pro-inclusion people have generally been willing
> to accept compromises on wording, but you appear unwilling to accept
> compromise of any kind.
Nonsense. I have consistently stated that the matter can be treated in
the "practices" document (#3). Document #1 is defined as a "purely
syntax and semantics" document, and issues outside of that scope,
especially when they introduce self-inconsistencies, inconsistencies
with the Internet Architecture, inconsistencies with widespread existing
practice, lack of conformance to RFC 2822 and/or MIME, attempt to
impose unreasonable restrictions on user interface design which is
clearly outside of the scope of the original WG charter, etc. will be
objected to -- those are not matters of mere "wording", and attempts
at badgering, bullying, and outright misrepresentation are out of order.
>>Happiness is irrelevant -- the document content has been clearly defined
>>by the WG Chairs, and particular text is either consistent with such
>>content or not. That is an objective fact unrelated to "happiness".
>
>
> Unfortunately, your assessment of this "objective fact" differs from that
> of a number of other participants, so it seems it's not quite so objective
> after all.
It is clear from WG discussion, some going back 10 months, that "Re:" is
not part of the defined syntax. It is clear that it is not part of any
protocol exchange. All that has been produced by those insisting on
including text regarding "Re:" that goes beyond what RFC 2822 provides
has been statements that they "wish it were in the syntax" -- and with
no supporting rationale. That small but loud faction continues to insist
that "Re:" must be given special mention in an unstructured header field
intended to convey only human-readable information about the topic of the
message, and that that unstructured field must be forbidden to begin with
any other sequence of characters, including variations of case, such as
"RE:", which happens to be in widespread use. All in spite of the fact
that it is clearly outside of the syntax and defined semantics (viz.
"only human-readable content" "identifying the topic of the message"),
and therefore has no place in "A purely syntax and semantics document".