Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id JAA22693; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 09:14:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.10); Wed, 5 Aug 1998 09:13:25 -0400
Received:  
        by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id JAA22616; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 09:13:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sws5.ctd.ornl.gov (sws5.ctd.ornl.gov [128.219.128.125]) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id JAA22600; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 09:13:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 22735 invoked by uid 3995); 5 Aug 1998 13:13:18 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <13768.23150.599772.220209@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 09:13:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dave Sill <de5@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov>
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.980804135710.29185B-100000@elwood.innosoft.com>
References: <Pine.SOL.3.95.980804135710.29185B-100000@elwood.innosoft.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.59 under 20.3 "Vatican City" XEmacs  Lucid
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, Tenn., USA
X-Face: "p~Q]mg{;e*}YR|)&Q/&Q\*~5UWfZX34;5M<gHyq0KvGt<$qi6=B7;$3~1p?Jc7-g?1vPVAc%YX$E6]%1jvk:,"f*jA|?~Cxb?WJ5gt}L?qsMAjROM~rHbK27yx=t,L/?IHb8@|cYg8"Y)~0IpU~J.^w,VW)u?M3q-AS{f`@RZ]Wll
X-Disclaimer: My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my employer

DRUMS WG Chair <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com> wrote:

>(17) Section 3.5.2, paragraph 2, requirements deemed unreasonable by
>two participants, deemed reasonable by others.  Current text is
>directly from RFC 1123 so is the default without a rough concensus to
>the contrary.

VRFY support should be optional. Mandating support for features that
many admins will disable causes code bloat. This is like congress
passing a law that car makers have to offer CD players in all models,
even though many buyers won't want one. 

>(26) Section 4.4, local time preferred to UT in Received.  One WG
>participant disagrees with language.  Some want reason for preference
>explained.

The ~4th paragraph starts by saying that "comparability of Received
fields is important". Recommending local time seems to contradict
that.

>(28) Section 4.5.4.1, paragraph 3.  Retry algorithm MUST be
>configurable.  Requirement deemed unreasonable by some, useful hint by
>others.  Text is from RFC 1123, so default if no concensus is to leave
>it.

I consider the requirement unreasonable. Why outlaw implementations
that work fine just because they're not configurable? This is like
congress passing a law mandating adjustable lumbar support in car
seats. If users need a feature, they'll use a product that supports
it. I see no compelling reason to require it in all servers.

Also, paragraph 3 says "The parameters to the retry algorithm MUST be
configurable." I don't see where these parameters are defined, so the
requirement is under defined. If it's so important that certain things
are configurable that it warrants a MUST, shouldn't the parameters
themselves also be specified?

-Dave