On 2011-10-18 13:08, Keith Moore wrote:
and let's now move the BCP part of this discussion to another venue,
>> like ASRG. GL just uses ordinary SMTP technology and with respect to
>> GL there's nothing to be fixed in SMTP, so I fail to see why this BCP
>> work has to be discussed on ietf-smtp.
I fail to see how ASRG can expect to get a BCP if the people on ietf-smtp
> don't like the proposal.
That RFC 5782 isn't on standards track is actually a disgrace on the
IETF side of "non-research". But why are folks talking about a BCP
at all? The simple problem reported by Hector were multiple GL 4xx
codes with various "human readable" retry delay hints. To fix that,
if it needs to be "fixed" at all, there has to be one GL code with
one "machine readable" way to indicate when senders MAY try again.
IMO that doesn't sound like "BCP", any RFC status that's good enough
to define or modify a 4xx will do. No SMTP extension needed; it is
no problem if a sender doesn't understand the "machine readable" 4xx
GL info, they can continue to follow their own retry strategies.