Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-hryckelynck-writing-rfcs-01

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hubert,
At 04:12 17-05-2012, hub ryck wrote:
>I did a mistake when I posted the first version. I wanted to change 
>the name but I don't know how. The problem is, when I post a new 
>version, if I change the name how the site will related it to the 
>previous version ?

Barry Leiba provided an explanation at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg05884.html

>"it is easy to say" is ok for me. I modified section 1 in draft 
>"draft-hryckelynck-writing-rfcs-04" as follows :
>
>"It is easy to say that mails with, for example, an attempted fraud 
>content are mails we must intercept."

I was trying to explain and you used it as suggested text.  :-)

>I checked every expired draft containing "mail" or "smtp" or "spam".
>I could see that finding a way to get the user advice has been a 
>concern for others.
>But none of the previous approaches I found is close from the one I propose.

Ok.  I'll suggest that you get reviews from other people as it may 
help to refine the proposal.

>I was not sure of what you meant when you asked "What is my opinion".

I meant it "as what would conclude after reading the material".

>Also, I realized, as these RFCs are experimental, I may have 
>referenced them as non normative ?

The Style Guide at 
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/rfc-style explains how to 
determine whether a reference should be normative or informative.

>My opinion is that it is too bad "efforts to reconcile the two 
>approaches have failed".
>But I don't think it will help :-)

No comment. :-)

>I didn't know you were writing a draft on the subject => 
>"draft-moonesamy-senderid-spf-conclusion-xx"

That draft will never be published.  I would not even recommend 
spending the time to read it.

>Would you like to be an author ? I would be more than happy if you want to.

It's going to be a lot of work to get this draft anywhere near 
consensus.  May I suggest that you contact the APPSAWG Chairs ( 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/charter/ ) to see whether 
there is any support for your proposal?  I'll consider your question 
if the WG Chairs determine that there is support.

>As a matter of fact your first mail arrived in the junk mail directory :-)

:-)

>If we look now on what happen with IETF mailing list, my mail was 
>submitted to approbation.

That is because you are not subscribed to the mailing list ( 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss ).

>It looks like my mail has to be "accepted" by someone. Also I could 
>find in RFC3683,
>"maintainers of any IETF mailing list may, at their discretion, also 
>remove posting rights to that IETF mailing list."

I'll try and explain this in simple terms.  It may not be the correct 
explanation.  If there are several messages about a topic which the 
moderator of an IETF mailing list considers as unrelated to the topic 
being discussed on that mailing list, they will send you a message 
about the matter.  If you keep ignoring their kind advice, they can 
moderate the messages you send to the mailing list.

>So I will do an answer similar to the one I made about experimental 
>status. At this stage,  "draft-hryckelynck-writing-rfcs-xx" has to 
>be viewed as a practice and then if the community gives sympathetic 
>consideration to this practice we could then design parts of this practice
>as a protocol (like for example communication between MTA and Base) 
>or as protocol extensions (specific header, error code, ...).

It is more about whether there is consensus.

>In resume :
>1- what about this idea ?
>2- work
>3- if idea is OK => what about a practice ?
>4- work
>5- if practice is OK => what about designing parts of this practice 
>as a protocol ?
>
>Do I have to modify something in this sense in the draft headers to 
>show this is a Practice and not a protocol ?
>Is "Intended status: Experimental" still OK ?

I suggest contacting the APPSAWG Chairs before getting into such an effort.

>========================
>Also, I received the following comment from Dave Crocker "the 
>proposal does not seem to require any user choice". As a matter of 
>fact at this stage I was only proposing to store

I saw Dave Crocker's message as it was posted to the 
[e-mail] mailing list.  Please see the suggested I made above.

Regards,
-sm