On October 23, 2017 at 10:39:00 PM, Keith Moore ([email protected]) wrote:
Hi! I just put the same comment in my Ballot, but to not have the same discussion on another thread... > The document reads like a BCP to me. Was it discussed in the group to go for > BCP? If yes, why was it decided to go not for BCP? If no, I would strong > recommend for BCP. BCP was discussed in the WG, and there was a vocal minority who advocated it. My personal feeling was that this is a document that both specifies protocol (this appropriate for standards track, especially given the need for demonstrated interoperability to advance to full Standard) and policy (thus BCP), but the former consideration tipped the balance in favor of standards track. And it didn't seem to make sense to split the document into two pieces. I also (somewhat reluctantly) attempted to rewrite version -08 to be a BCP, after versions -00 through -07 were intended as standards track. But in Prague (in response to -08) there was strong support that the document be standards track, so -09 was intended as standards track again. There were no objections to that in WGLC. Maybe that rewrite is what is making it sound so much like a BCP. The document talks in many places about recommendations that it makes (not behavior that it specifies) — and even the Shepherd’s write up says that it "closely matches much of current practice for how mail services are operated.” All that screams BCP to me. In any case, no need to beat a dead horse; I just wanted my opinion to be on the record. Thanks! Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
