Subject: RE: #1093 Email addresses: Poll results, so far

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 12:03:19 -0700 (PDT)

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>So far, I'd have to call this "no consensus", 

Far from it. I'd say it's rather clear.

I'm assuming, of course, that when you write "no requirement" you actually
mean "we don't say anything", not that we say "there is no requirement 
...". If we don't say anything, then we are saying implicitely that 
RFC2142 is still valid. (Not that we could actually invalidate it.)

Looking at 1 in terms of RFC2142, then, we see that 1B, 1D, and 1E are all
"what RFC2142 says", and 1A and 1C are "not what RFC2142 says". That 
division results in an 8 to 1 result (counting twice the same voters you 
let vote twice) for "what RFC2142 says". And the one vote "not RFC2142" 
also voted for an option that is RFC2142. Sounds like its almost 
unanimous.

I don't speak for Forrest, but my 1F vote can live with that result.

Doing the same for 2 gives 2B, 2C, and 2D as "what RFC2142 says" and 2A 
and 2E as "not RFC2142." Grouped that way results in 8 to 2 for "what 
RFC2142 says." Again, I counted twice the same people you allowed to vote 
twice. Both of the two who voted "not RFC2142" also voted for an option 
that IS RFC2142, so it appears that "RFC2142" is acceptable to them. 

If you examine the text of my vote for item 2, you'll notice that it says,
essentially, "what RFC2142 says", and was cast as 2F instead of 2C only 
because of the abiguity in the meaning of "no requirement". So, that makes 
it 9 to 2, with the 2 being explicit in saying they can accept the 
opposite result. 

That's NOT a consensus for "what RFC2142 says", in BOTH cases?

So, the only thing left to debate is whether we just say nothing at all or 
try to rewrite RFC2142 into our draft. Since RFC2142 already says it, and 
there appears to be a groundswell of support for updating RFC2142 just 
within this group, we ought to say nothing. If we write it in, and then 
2142 is updated to say something different, who follows which?

As for the idea of slipping some new mandates into USAGE, I don't see 
where this poll was USEFOR or USEPRO specific, so a consensus here is a 
consensus there.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 11:59:39 +0200

> RFC2142 is still valid. (Not that we could actually invalidate it.)

Yes, I meant "no requirement in the USEFOR document".

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 10:42:54 GMT

In <[email-masked]> John Stanley <[email-masked]> writes:

>"what RFC2142 says",..........

No, 1B and 1D and NOT "what RFC2142 says", neither is 2B

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5