On Mon, 05 May 2008 18:06:58 +0100, Hector Santos
<hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
Fine! Then adopt my second suggestion, which was to make the BCP a
clearly
designated section within the ADSP document.
BCP - "Best Current Practice"
What's best, current about the practice nor the practice itself, has yet
to be established. So why would you call it a BCP?
We need some means of saying "ADSP has defined what Senders may put in an
ADSP record. Here is what Verifiers are intended/expected to do with it",
but without using Normative Language for the Verifiers (since we cannot
even REQUIRE that they Verify at all, let alone do it any particular way).
If you don't like the term BCP because the practices we are proposing are
not yet "current", then let us use some other term implying
non-normativeness. Particularly if this is done in a specially designated
section of the ADSP draft (rather than in a separate document), we do not
need to use that term. Perhaps something like:
"This section describes a Code of Practice for verifiers who wish to
fulfil the expectations of sites that have supplied ADSP records. This
Code is not normative (since it is open to any site whether it chooses to
perform any verification at all), and the words "MUST" and "SHOULD", when
used within this section, are intended to apply only to those sites which
claim to be following this particular Code."
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html