Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Cullen Jennings wrote:
Making this experimental not make much sense to me - there is no real
experiment here other than "will anyone use it" and that could be
said about a large percentage of PS documents. When I read 2026, this
looks like PS.
I agree. If the document is standardizing what is deployed and there is
no desire to change it, then it should be Informational. Otherwise it
looks like PS.
Well, folks are using it right now:
http://wiki.jabber.org/index.php/Jabber_Email_Header
I see it in the wild quite a bit, admittedly among people who may simply
be experimenting with it since they are heavy users of XMPP-based
instant messaging systems.
So perhaps Informational is appropriate.
Again, I'm not averse to designing something more general. And I think
that experience with this header field may provide useful input to that
process.
IMHO, if the header is deployed and you publish even an Informational
RFC on it, there is very little chance that existing implementations
would change when a new replacement header is standardized. And it might
be too late already (even before the Informational RFC is published) to
standardize a replacement.
All comments I've seen so far seem to imply that this is useful. There
are existing implementations. So it doesn't seem like an Experimental
RFC is needed, as the experiment is already successful.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf