-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Hector
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 4:35 PM
To: ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: SMTP traffic control
Further, optimizations are notorious for having unexpected side effects,
and I think people have already raised some of those here.
Yet another generalization cliche.
...with quite a bit of standards and implementation expertise behind it.
I just don't wish to see a proactive effort to improve/fix/optimize
the current environment be thrown own because of limited perception
that smoke isn't good enough to look at some proposals - that we need
FIRE before anything is done, and not only fire, but everyone's house
is burning.
I don't think there's consensus that there's even smoke here. So far, although
there have been plenty of creative suggestions about how to go about producing
a workable extension to support this optimization, there's exactly one party
(you) asserting that this is a problem which requires immediate protocol work
to fix.
Protocol and standardization work takes a lot of people resources, usually for
years at a time. For it to be worthwhile, the problem has to be big. There
doesn’t seem to be much consensus that this is.
In one respect, you're saying this will improve delivery speed. That may be
true, but there's not much agreement with your premise that that's a key
property of email which greylisting breaks.
In another, you're saying that the wasted retry attempts are a pain point.
That too appears to be a singular perspective.
At best, this doesn't mandate standards track work. You might consider
"Experimental", the bar for which is far lower. If it catches on, you can look
at moving its status upwards.