On 3/30/2022 10:37 AM, Brotman, Alex wrote:
I wanted to send an update for this draft. I received (negative) feedback from
one person via the list, though several outside of the list were supportive. I
wanted to try to clear up some of the language in the draft. Appreciate
feedback from those who are interested to read.
The basic idea of this spec seems reasonable to me.
However, many reasonable ideas ultimately don't work out, for a wide
variety of reasons. To try to mitigate against that outcome, a
specification needs compelling clarity about use and benefits, and a
base of community support that wants that use and benefit.
Perhaps I've missed it, but it appears that the spec lacks both of
these, as of now. The question, then, is how to develop both?
I think the document has quite a bit of language that is tentative and I
think that is appropriate, at this point.
Absent a decisive technical criticism -- which I'm not seeing, so far --
I suggest that the document seek processing through the Independent
stream, rather than the IETF stream, and that it seek Experimental
status, rather than Standards track.
Assuming that the Independent Stream Editor < rfc-ise(_at_)rfc-editor(_dot_)org> is
willing(*), that stream has /far/ less hassle and unpredictability than
the IETF, which is subject to all sorts of unexpected issues, depending
on who offers criticism. (Notice I didn't say 'whether'...)
Experimental has the benefit of being an explicit request for community
action /and feedback/. This can serve to develop that base of community
support.
d/
(*) The editor is new to the task and so there's no track record to consult.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp