Subject: Re: New USEPRO path-identity text (Hello, Chair?)

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:34:34 -0700 (PDT)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> and we all know that MUST sends John into apoplexy :-( .

Knock it off, Charles. You know you are wrong, and you know better than
this. Your insult will probably pass un-hindered by our Chairs, however,
so congrats and slipping it in.

Do you even know what apoplexy is? Probably not. 

What causes concern is your repeated failure to justify mandates you
fabricate after multiple requests to do so, and your abuse of position to
keep unjustified mandates in the draft and thus a target for discussion.  
There are a lot of MUSTs that our drafts contain that cause me no
"apoplexy" at all, because the use is justified. Justify YOUR proposed 
MUST and end the problem, or remove it and end the problem. 

I've provided explicit replacement text, so you cannot now play the "chair
says you must provide text" game. What will it be next?

>>I think it's a SHOULD, nothing really breaks if a site only posts
>>perfect, universally welcomed, articles and doesn't have an abuse
>>address.

>And pigs might fly :-) .

And nothing really breaks if a site only posts abusive articles and does
not have an abuse address specific for the injecting agent's FQDN, because
everyone I know is able to figure out what a top level domain is and send
abuse reports there. So, your "pigs might fly" response to "nothing really 
breaks" is a waste of time.

>All "mailable" means is that there is some server somewhere that will
>accept it. If it then silently goes to devnull, then that is regrettable,
>but not much we can do about it.

I've told you that at least once, but the problem text doesn't say 
"mailable", it says "available". What is "available" and how does it 
differ from "mailable"? The assumption is that it is some form of "valid", 
since otherwise your pet algorithm wouldn't be accomplished.

>Yes, but unfortunately its status is "Proposed Standard", and it is a
>mess. So I thought it better to decide exactly which bits we wanted and
>write them down clearly.

You did NOT "decide exactly which bits [we] wanted", you CREATED a 
requirement where there was an explicit non-requirement in RFC2142. It is 
ludicrous to claim that you simply copied bits of RFC2142. It is insulting 
to everyone here for you to waste our time with that claim.

>Anyway, I need to hear opinions on this. Can those sites be excused from
>"abuse@"?

I am simply amazed at the ridiculous twists you are making to the english 
language. Now you are pretending that by following RFC2142 instead of your 
new mandate that we would be "excusing" sites from having an abuse 
reporting address. How you got to this amazing result is, well, beyond 
comprehension.

The fact is, for every injection agent that has a FQDN that YOU want to
say MUST regarding abuse@ its FQDN, there is a top level domain readily
extractable from that FQDN which ALREADY has a mandate for an abuse
reporting address.  No sites would be excused from anything. Every site
MUST have an abuse reporting address, just not necessarily at the FQDN of
the injecting agent like you want them to.

Please stop it. If anything would cause "apoplexy", it is your abuse of 
the language in your campaign to make new mandates for trivial issues, 
and your abuse of your position in keeping unwarranted mandates from 
being removed.