Carl Malamud wrote:
Carl Malamud wrote:
Don't forget: my draft does not specify who has to use it or
how recipients should act when presented with various keywords.
This is simply a way for senders, mtas, and recipients to
assert keywords using a common mechanism.
Carl,
This is part that actually worries me more than anything else. Can you
explain what is the exact scope of this mechanism? If it is generic,
than it should be stated so, otherwise, the scope of it including the
operations of the IANA registry, should be narrowed.
Well, the scope is pretty narrow now: solicitation class keywords.
The i-d gives guidance on the puropse, and a designated expert is
recommended to develop any further policies.
I really think it is wise to spec out the fewest things that
are absolutely necessary. Do we really need to go further? I'm
not sure how anybody reading the draft could be confused into
thinking this is a more generic, multi-purpose mechanism and
the combination of registration in a registry and the
strong recommendation that documentation of the registry
be in the form of an rfc gives it significant inertia.
Thank you for the clarification.
Yakov
-------
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"All that is gold does not glitter" (LOTR)
-------
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg