To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: SMTP WG Last-Call
References: <4.3.2.20000720225612.00bc15f0@mail.bayarea.net>
In-Reply-To: Dave Crocker's message of "Thu, 20 Jul 2000 22:59:16 +0900"
From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
Organization: The Eyrie
Date: 20 Jul 2000 15:35:16 -0700
Message-ID: <ylhf9k2zx7.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Lines: 30
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) XEmacs/21.1 (Biscayne)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com> writes:

> two, yes.  and a third has chimed in.

Make it four on several of these points.

> That is, working group consensus was consistently and massively against
> those concerns.

That is not in agreement with my reading of this working group for the
time that I've been here.  The working group consensus was consistently
and massively against the way in which the concerns were presented, but I
think some of these are good points, and do not have a consensus against
them.

I personally don't have an interest in belaboring these points further
because I think at this stage it's considerably more important to the rest
of the Internet to get an RFC *published* than to deal with these issues,
which I think are by and large minor and can possibly be dealt with in a
later revision.  But I do feel like I have to chime in given the assertion
that no one agreed with any of Dan's points.

If someone wants to try to make minor revisions at this stage, Philip
Hazel's summary is one that I also generally agree with.  If the choice is
to not do that due to how late this is in the process, I also agree with
that.  I've enough experience with IETF working groups to know that if the
goal is to get the RFC perfect, there will never actually be an RFC.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>