> Point them at RFC 2026: "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3".
> Amongst other things, it says
>
> Some RFCs document Internet Standards. These RFCs form the 'STD'
> subseries of the RFC series [4]. When a specification has been
> adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label
> "STDxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC
> series.
>
> Of course, if they don't believe the meta-standard that defines the
> standards....
My problem on this has been stated by management already. rfc 2821 is
"proposed standard" which tells them it's not accepted thus we don't follow
it.
I just read BCP9 which seems to indicate that they're only standards after
they've been accepted.
(page 7)
Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet
should or will become Internet Standards or BCPs. Such non-standards
track specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet
standardization. Non-standards track specifications may be published
directly as "Experimental" or "Informational" RFCs at the discretion
of the RFC Editor in consultation with the IESG (see section 4.2).
Annoyingly, according to BCP9 sec 4.1.1
Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature
specifications. It is desirable to implement them in order to gain
experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification.
However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if
problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying
implementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive
environment is not recommended
So basically, it's saying here that because rfc2821 is "proposed" that using
it is not recommended if it distrupts sensitive environment. Management
sees mail as sensitive.
Ok, now I'm getting confused...
--
Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals
