[Top] [All Lists]

Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp

2011-10-26 10:20:47

I think Keith has it pretty spot-on. BCPs are for documents where it makes no sense to talk about the concepts of (to quote 2026) "protocol, service, procedure, convention, or format", "particular methods of using a [technical specification]", "specify particular values or ranges, of TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol that must be implemented", "interoperability", and "implementation and/or operational experience". If it can be deployed and you get get incremental implementation experience, it should be on the Standards Track; it shouldn't be a second class citizen of being a BCP. My personal take is that BCPs should be reserved to guidelines for operators and administrators, statements of architectural principles, and documentation of procedures and operations of the IETF itself.


On 10/26/11 7:12 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
IMO, BCPs are a way for IETF to endorse desirable practices for which the 2026 
advancement criteria (e.g. interoperability tests) are not applicable.

On Oct 26, 2011, at 4:24 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:


I don't understand, either.  While it lists a /set/ of alternative or 
complementary best practices, it /is/ about best practices.  Please explain.


On 10/25/2011 7:12 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
(a) This shouldn't be labeled as a BCP. It's an A/S Standards Track draft if
ever there was one.
(b) Given this and the extension, is it worth spinning up a Greylisting WG?


On 10/23/11 3:40 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Maybe a new thread Subject: would help here...

Given the interest, I've started putting together a BCP. It's now posted as
draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp; comments welcome (and thanks to those of you
that already did). It is only an outline right now, and I'll fill it in as
people make suggestions about topics it should cover and/or start providing
text to include.

It doesn't touch the SMTP extension people are discussing. Someone else can
champion that one if so inclined. That shouldn't go in a BCP because it
doesn't even exist yet. This document will only describe current and historic

Maybe we can get it on the docket for Taipei. I'll send out some friendly pings.


Pete Resnick<>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102