BCPs can be normative, Dale. It's informational docs that are not. They
are "informative." :)
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Sean Leonard <dev+ietf(_at_)seantek(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On 3/23/2016 12:02 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
As a work, this seems very useful, as it pulls together (or will pull
together) a lot of useful information about e-mail addresses in both
specification and practice.
Great!
But the terminology needs to be clarified
at some point: a single document (or sentence) is either normative or
not. If something is a "best common practice", it is not normative, the
rules are set somewhere else.
IETF Process issue:
Well, RFC 5646/BCP 47 "Tags for Identifying Languages" is a BCP. However,
it is referred to normatively by a slew of Standards Track documents. I
would propose that this document be seen in a similar light. One would not
expect the Mail Standards to adopt these regular expressions, but other
standards that use regular expressions for e-mail would probably do best to
refer to this document. Examples include CBOR/CDDL
(draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl), and DNS/NAPTR records (RFCs
3401-3404), when the subject matter is e-mail stuff.
When I raised the classification issue during initial development, one
advisor said something to the effect of oh, so it's like a Real BCP, where
it actually prescribes actual Best Current Practices, unlike what most of
the BCPs these days are. (Whatever that means, just the messenger!)
Sean
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp