On 12/04/2015 11:54 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Extended tutorial material is well and good in the right context, but it
is not typically considered appropriate for vetting a working group
creation effort. Worse, I believe the tutorial exercise has been going
on for quite a few days now, which makes it costly, as well as wasteful.
Yes, you're quite right.
Backing up to the original mandate of this discussion:
I think it's fairly evident that the draft (and some of the discussions
here are venturing into areas outside of the normal scope of IETF work
(eg: social policy) and has insufficient practical experience to be
adequately informed on how to accomplish the result, let alone the
potential consequences from an operational/security/privacy perspective.
Work in this area can be immensely useful, but the candidate draft
presumes too much and needs substantial re-work, probably to the point
of starting over. For example:
- Normative "MUST NOT" wording won't work in an IETF
non-technical/non-interoperability policy-based supposedly optional choice.
- The draft has no understanding that the Received lines and other
headers may well have exactly the same information in other than a
Received "from clause". IOW: the proposal doesn't come close to
addressing the desired outcome.
- The draft makes no notice of the privacy, operational or security
issues that can be impaired by the lack of such information. IOW: the
proposal may well do more harm than good even if only to privacy.
Before deciding what the draft should say, let alone before
re-work/starting over, we need to have a proper discussion of the
pros/cons of doing anything in this space, and if we do decide to do
something in this space, identify what protocol details need to be
addressed.
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp