Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp

Interrupting my work on the reply to your previous message, but I can 
answer this one more quickly:
On 10/28/11 12:13 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Pete,
>
> On 10/28/2011 6:28 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>
> > If a document
> > defines conventions and particular methods of using a technical 
> > specification,
> > then there can be implementations of the document, and therefore 
> > incremental
> > experience with it, and it therefore should be on the standards track.
> > If a document defines ways of being interoperable with a technical 
> > specification,
> > then there can be implementations of the document, and therefore 
> > incremental
> > experience with it, and it therefore should be on the standards track.
> You think BCP 23, 24, 28, 34, ... involve no software and do not 
> change the behavior of protocol engines?
> By your personal definitions, these seem to have been mis-assigned and 
> ought to be required to be standards track.
Probably. And often to the repeated consternation of the community. We 
*repeatedly* get into arguments on the IETF list (and in working group 
lists) about what should be BCP or Informational and what should be 
standards track. I know chairs and ADs who get asked time and again for 
guidance on this topic, and they get different answers depending on who 
they ask (and the way the wind is blowing.) There is *not* community 
consensus on this point. We are haphazard in our assignment to each of 
the categories.
> There is a core problem:  you appear to be using your personal 
> terminology and definitions, rather than reflecting community practice.
To the contrary, I am constantly reflecting on community practice. That 
practice is inconsistent. It varies by WG, by AD, by IESG, and by the 
entire community over time. Sometimes in waves.
My push has been that *I* will try to have WGs in the Apps Area for 
which I am the stuckee be as consistent in their practice as I can 
convince them to be. So I'm trying.
> In all likelihood, your terms and definitions are more reasonable, 
> consistent and practical than the community's, but that's irrelevant.
> What is relevant is established practice.
If there were an established practice, I would agree with you 
completely. There's not.
> It's fine to seek a change in established practice, but not as a sole 
> voice in a management position, invoking personal and distinct 
> language and requirements.  That's not supposed to be the way things 
> work around here.
> My query about applicability statements was not about documents that 
> effectively serve that role but about documents that are formally 
> assigned that status AND are effective.  Established practice, not 
> personal assessment.
[...]
> Please get the consensus of the community about this.
I absolutely am trying to get said consensus. One document, one WG at a 
time. I have asked WGs (in other areas as well as Apps) why some 
documents are Informational or BCP instead of standards track. Sometimes 
they tell me to blow. Sometimes they agree and switch the documents to 
standards track. I'm hoping that if I repeat this exercise enough times, 
we can get to a consensus on this.
Now, maybe you are complaining that, given my position as AD (and its 
unfortunate perception as authoritative), my style of trying to achieve 
that consensus is actually "coercing" rather than "getting" that 
consensus. (Stories of missing fire hydrants come to mind.) I've 
certainly misjudged such things before, and if I'm doing it here, I'll 
try to change tack. But my intentions are as pure as such things ever get.
> Please then re-label the documents that have been misassigned.
One windmill at a time.

pr

--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102