Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At first blush, this report fell afoul of my default query: > does this need to be in policy? Does sectio 5.2 of policy claim to be > comprehensive? Do all the non-mandatory fields belong in section 5.2? > policy is supposedly minimal, these fields are optional anyway, and > while some might be best practice recommendations, such recommendations > belong in the dev ref, instead of in policy. > > However, I seem to be in the minority view on this, so I am > deferring judgement on this issue for the moment.
That was sort of my initial reaction too, but the counterargument that came to mind is that it would be nice to have a complete description of all of the known, standardized control fields somewhere. And Policy is a lot closer to being that somewhere than anywhere else, and there's some interoperability gain from documenting their contents and usage. The same argument applies to all the Vcs-* headers, which currently suffer from a lack of specification of what exactly should go into the header in some places. Having a specification in Policy would improve interoperability. (For that matter, given that it was instituted by GR and has an impact on the archive, we should probably document Dm-Upload-Allowed in Policy as well.) -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
