At Sat, 08 Nov 2008 08:53:36 -0800,
Dave CROCKER wrote:
Eric Rescorla wrote:
Speaking as someone who just got burned by exactly such a list,
I think I need to agree with John: I don't object to the IETF
publishing an informational document on this, but a PS implies
that IETF endorses the practice, which I don't think we should do.
Eric,
Roughly 95% of all mail is spam. That makes email a pretty onerous
"practice".
So we ought to remove standards status for all email specifications.
I don't think this follows from my comment.
Or we could consider keeping mechanism and policy separate, standardizing
technologies (mechanisms) and refraining from condemning them because some
operators have misguided policies and use the mechanisms badly.
This sounds like a false choice to me.
Really, guys, everything we standardize has examples of misuse. So that
hardly
makes your current line of argument substantive.
You're certainly welcome to have that opinion, but I don't think that's
what I'm saying. For the reasons Keith is suggesting, among others,
I don't think this is a very good mechanism and therefore the IETF
shouldn't endorse it. As I said, I don't have a problem with this
document being advanced as Informational, but PS is different.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf