Subject: A blast from the past

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 15 Feb 1999 02:40:08 -0000

John Klensin, DRUMS mailing list, December 1996: ``The editor's position
is that telling an implementation that clearly conforms today that it is
no longer conforming requires very strong and clear consensus.''

Of course, that was in response to something that he found offensive,
viz., requiring SMTP clients to use uppercase at certain points. (Never
mind the fact that clients do this anyway for interoperability.)

In contrast, when Klensin _wants_ to prohibit widespread, interoperable,
standards-compliant behavior---for example, servers that don't announce
VRFY in response to EHLO---he uses his power as document editor to make
the change, neither asking for approval nor responding to objections.

Are server implementors going to be told that they have to announce VRFY
in response to EHLO? If they ask why, are they going to be told that
this requirement was the consensus of the working group, or are they
going to be told the truth?

---Dan

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:30:26 +0800

>In contrast, when Klensin _wants_ to prohibit widespread, interoperable,

Dan,

your note has nothing at all to do with conducting the work of the working 
group, instead devolving into the usual ad hominem.

It appears to be a complaint, but has nothing to do with IETF procedures.

If you have any interest in pursuing matters constructively, please 
consider pursuing them appropriately.  The IETF has well-document 
procedures for complaints.  Follow them or find another venue.

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                       Tel: +60 (19) 3299 445
<mailto:[email-masked]>             Post Office Box 296, U.P.M.
                                         Serdang, Selangor 43400  MALAYSIA
Brandenburg Consulting
<http://www.brandenburg.com>                       Tel: +1 (408) 246 8253
Fax: +1(408)273 6464             675 Spruce Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94086  USA

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 18 Feb 1999 00:36:57 -0000

Klensin's stated editorial policy is that ``telling an implementation
that clearly conforms today that it is no longer conforming requires
very strong and clear consensus.''

I gave an example of widespread, interoperable, standards-compliant
behavior---namely, servers _not_ announcing VRFY in response to EHLO---
that Klensin prohibited without authorization from the working group.

It would obviously be counterproductive for clients to pay attention to
VRFY announcements. I have asked repeatedly what benefit Klensin's
prohibition is supposed to have. There's no answer.

So Klensin is imposing costs without interoperability benefits; Klensin
is changing the spec without working group consensus; and Klensin is
blatantly violating his own stated policy.

I'm aware that many DRUMS participants find it easy to sit back and let
Klensin do what he wants. That, in and of itself, indicates a procedural
problem. Klensin should have the burden of convincing the rest of us
that his changes are a good idea; instead he goes ahead and makes his
changes, putting the burden on everyone else.

> group, instead devolving into the usual ad hominem.

As usual, Crocker ignores all of the problems that I'm pointing out.

---Dan

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:50:43 +0800

>As usual, Crocker ignores all of the problems that I'm pointing out.

Life is always filled with problems.  Hence, one must prioritize them.

Rather than "ignoring" all of the problems, I'm focusing on the most 
important problem in this thread, namely your lack of constituency.

d/