ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-10.txt> (DKIM And Mailing Lists) to BCP

2011-05-23 17:07:23
At 11:03 23-05-2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Then you are using criteria that go beyond the requirements of a BCP.

From RFC 2026:

   "5.  BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs

        The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
        standardize practices and the results of community deliberations.
        ...
        The BCP subseries creates a smoothly
        structured way for these management entities to insert proposals into
        the consensus-building machinery of the IETF while gauging the
        community's view of that issue."

Nothing in the definition of BCPs require that it be limited to covering existing practice.

This creates debates along the lines of "the RFC says so" or "the IETF says that this should be the practice".

Perhaps the wording is a bit more coarse than one would like, but at base, "telling the community what to do" is what standards-track and BCP documents do, whether based on existing practice or not.

A RFC is a way of telling the community what you did and how you did it. If people believes it is a good idea, they will pick it up.

I'll diverge from the topic. Let's say that you are writing a proposal and there is a controversial issue. You are technically correct in your arguments but there are several people who disagrees with you on the issue. Your options are:

 (i)  Don't make a change (assuming the IESG is fine with that)

 (ii) Make a change to gain goodwill (they will implement your proposal)

I leave it to the IETF to determine which option to pick.

Not really. The latter paragraph merely notes that there are receivers that do not understand what a DKIM signature means.

I'll stick to my previous comments on this to avoid further distractions to the draft.

You country has one of those, too?

No, but I came across abuse reports where the people mentions that they will contact one of those about the matter. :-)

Again, we seem to have an attempt to impose a more stringent requirement on qualifying for BCP status than exists in IETF formal documentation.

At 11:43 23-05-2011, John Levine wrote:
But since this argument seems to be all about proving that we've
followed the official process rather than about publishing something
accurate and useful rather than speculative and misleading, who cares?
Now that I understand the rules, I plan to publish all of my
experiments as BCPs.

One little gem from an I-D which will be published as a BCP is that the information is intended to reflect "consensus on the ground". A RFC is not worth a pinch of salt if it override that.

Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf