IETF Logo Mail Archive

[apps-discuss] BCP, AS, something else? (was RE: Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting-03)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Tue, 21 February 2012 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C24C21E803B for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:07:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.594
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a91npyvEpee1 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:07:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06BFA21E802A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:07:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:07:37 -0800
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:07:37 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:07:38 -0800
Thread-Topic: BCP, AS, something else? (was RE: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting-03)
Thread-Index: AcztLXUQWsxG/6S8TDC74LT5IWd1awACbOQwAOUi9xA=
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7DE4B@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120215194417.098a0438@elandnews.com> <4F3D0EE5.9060008@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20120216143635.09cc8660@resistor.net> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7DDD4@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120216201037.0901f720@resistor.net> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7DDDD@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7DDDD@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [apps-discuss] BCP, AS, something else? (was RE: Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting-03)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:07:38 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:32 PM
> To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting-03
> 
> > >    An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what
> > >    circumstances, one or more TSs may be applied to support a particular
> > >    Internet capability.
> > >
> > >I would say abuse mitigation qualifies as a "capability".
> >
> > Local policy in SMTP provides leeway.  It can be used for abuse
> > mitigation.  In my opnion, that's not an Internet capability.
> 
> Since the work of greylisting involves an altered but still
> interoperable interaction between clients and servers, I believe it
> does qualify.
> 
> Do others want to weigh in on this?

I'd like to hear some other WG opinions on this.  This document started out as a BCP, but with some guidance from Pete and a re-read of RFC2026, cited above, I believe this qualifies as an Applicability Statement, so I changed its requested status accordingly.  (I should have pointed this out when I posted the revision; sorry about that.)  SM disagrees; his is the middle cited text there.

What's the group's consensus?

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email