Subject: Re: #1008 USEFOR 1.5 References: Final text on "followup"

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 12:37:41 -0700 (PDT)

Henry Spencer <henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>However, the mere fact that someone says the consensus is wrong doesn't
>make it so.

If you are going to pretend that the only argument I've ever made about 
this is "I say it is wrong", then I will happily go through all the 
details again. Is that what you want, or would you like to change your
statement and admit that I've provided much more than "I say"?

>No, only that RFC 2822 -- a mail standard -- doesn't entirely apply to
>news, 

When our standard says it defers to RFC2822, it defers to RFC2822. It
doesn't matter if RFC2822 "doesn't entirely apply", it applies in those
sections where we have already said it applies. References is one such
section. 

If you wish to submit proposed text so that we do NOT defer to RFC2822 for
References, fine. If you wish to discuss the text I've already provided
for USEFOR to bring it in line with RFC2822, that's fine too. But claiming
that RFC2822 doesn't apply to news after we've said that it does is
dishonest.

>Defining the format and semantics of news articles is our job, and it is
>appropriate for us to do it.

Within the context of the IETF, which includes RFC2119. If we don't want
RFC2119 to apply, then why do we explicitely say it does? If you would
like to propose text to correct this compliance with RFC2119, please do.

>Correct, it's not.  The ability to detect intended relationships between
>articles is important -- that's what References is for 

That's what YOU say it is for. Unfortunately, none of the RFCs agree with 
you. So, I guess it's ok for "Henry says" to be a closing argument. Double 
standard (pun intended)?