Re: msg-id

[Bruce Lilly <blilly@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon December 13 2004 19:09, Thorfinn wrote:

> We mean MUST, and we also accept that MUST applies in the universe of
> practicalities, where nothing is actually of zero probability, so "close
> enough" is good enough.

RFC 2119 keywords, especially MUST/MUST NOT, are applicable
in specific types of circumstances as detailed in 2119 (q.v.).
Disappointment of a purchaser of second-hand goods is not one
of the criteria.

> You don't accept that, that's fine.  Everyone else, AFAICT, does accept
> that.  If anyone else doesn't, speak up now.

I object to such an ultimatum from other than the chair. There
is merit to some of what John has to say, and there are
serious problems with what some others have claimed. Any
ultimata should come from the chair, not individual WG
members, and should carry a reasonable time period for
response, not demanding an instant (i.e. "now") response.
I haven't the time to go into detail now, but I strongly
suggest that reading RFC 2822 section 3.6.4, RFC 822
section 4.1 and section 6, and draft-crocker-email-arch-01
sections 3.2 and 3.3 may help to clear up some of the
contradictory remarks made on this topic in this WG.