[Top] [All Lists]

Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt

2008-04-18 12:30:41

I'll say that I don't want to see 2821bis held up any more over this. A better treatment of IPv6-related issues in SMTP is needed, but it should be done in a separate document.

And in a separate document we'll be freer to say what we think is best because we won't have concerns about resetting 2821bis to proposed. (I think this indicates a flaw in our process, BTW, but we're not going to change the process by holding up 2821bis).


p.s. More generally, I think we've seen enough by now to realize that neither a hodgepodge of documents where each one modifies its predecessors in various ways (think RFC 821, 974, 1123, and SMTP extensions) , nor a monolithic document that tries to be all-encompassing and is completely revised every several years, is a good way to define a standard for a complex, evolving, and vital service like Internet email.

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

On Apr 17, 2008, at 11:09 PM, Paul Smith wrote:

Keith Moore wrote:

Oh, I saw that message.  I just didn't see the consensus.
It wasn't a consensus, it was a unilateral statement based on the fact that there wasn't a consensus.

Given that we're revising an ambiguous document, it was a conservative decision, even if it was a unilateral statement and even if the consensus on something new to recommend isn't clear.

I think it was totally the wrong action.

I also think arguing interminably, or otherwise failing to publish 2821 bis, would be the wrong action. There are few situations where we just can't get consensus in a timely manner in the IETF and have to do something else, and the right thing to do as that "something else" is case-dependent.

My serious offer here is that if somebody sees a way towards consensus on the implicit MX issue, please help find it or build it. The result of that consensus may not go into this document, but I will help to get the consensus documented and published.