Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id LAA01723; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 11:33:38 -0400
X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 11:33:36 EDT
Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from domen.uninett.no by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id LAA01708; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 11:33:34 -0400
Received: from dale.uninett.no by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP) 
          id <13595-0@domen.uninett.no>; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 17:33:29 +0200
Received: from dale.uninett.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) 
          by dale.uninett.no (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id RAA04002;
          Thu, 17 Aug 1995 17:33:25 +0200
Message-Id: <199508171533.RAA04002@dale.uninett.no>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.5.3 12/28/94
From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
cc: ietf-drums <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>
Subject: Re: Can ambiguities ever be removed??
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 17 Aug 1995 13:40:41 +0200." <Pine.SUN.3.91.950817133724.27998J-100000@ester>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 17:33:22 +0200
Sender: hta@dale.uninett.no

What John Klensin said at the DRUMS meeting was that:

- For any ambiguity in the standard, we need to disambiguate it.
  For each interpretation in use of this ambiguity, we need to either
  curse or bless each alternative. 
- For any commonly used deviation from the standard, we need to
  either bless it or curse it.

My addition: If we don't have any existing practice, we can't bless it in 
DRUMS.
Then we need to launch another WG or other effort to bless something new.

      Harald A