Text 57, 49 rader
Skriven 2012-07-08 17:14:43 av Richard Webb (1:116/901.0)
     Kommentar till text 18 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Link requto  to the
===========================
Hello Michiel,

On Sat 2012-Jul-07 22:04, Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555) wrote to Robert
Bashe:

 MV>> The FTSC of today is a paper tiger. It has no teeth because the
 MV>> powers that be won't allow it. Every time the FTSC has tried to
 MV>> step into a more proactive role, she was gently but firmly pushed
 MV>> back into her corner of "ducumenting currect practise only". Like
 MV>> a little child.

 RB> Which, in my understanding, was always the purpose of the FTSC.

MvdV> Not according to mark...

Maybe, or maybe Mark removed a couple of steps.  The role of the ftsc has
always been documentation of standards iirc.

But, that doesn't mean that distribution schemes etc. might
choose to actually do their own standards enforcement, and
cite ftsc documentation.

Consider building codes, electrical to be exact.

The nec says this is what consists of standard practices for electrical wiring
etc. in the U.S.  Local codes use the nec
in promulgating their own code, but they use teh standards
set down by the nec as their baseline, and may even be more
stringent in some areas.


A backbone or distribution system might use ftsc
documentation to say that messages conforming to standard y
are not supported because they break something for those
that conform to standard w of an echomail message.  That's
where enforcement came in that Mark's referring to I'd
think.  To wit, 1:396/1 running gmd across echomail messages which stirred up a
bit of controversy.

MEthinks Mark may have gone from a to c skipping b in the
process.  That doesn't mean that the ftsc was not consulted
by these folks btw.



Regards,
           Richard
---
 * Origin:  (1:116/901)