Yes, and when your protocol is almost 30 years old and has most of the true quirks and edge cases ironed out because nearly everyone with a computer uses it - I

Yes, and when your protocol is almost 30 years old and has most of the true quirks and edge cases ironed out because nearly everyone with a computer uses it - I think adopting a more strict approach can make sense. That said - there's a reason this draft wasn't adopted: it doesn't make sense in most other areas (and certainly wouldn't have made sense for http and some of these protocols even 20 years ago). The reality of technology is almost everyone gives zero fucks about how good your standard/protocol is - they want to use it to do something genuinely useful. --- To summarize: The initial argument of this draft states "The posture this statement advocates promotes interoperability in the short term, but can negatively affect the protocol ecosystem over time." My rebuttal is: Interoperability in the short term FAR OUTWEIGHS negative consequences in the long term, and should be prioritized for any protocol which has not yet seen wide and robust adoption.