Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail-02.txt

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> I've also changed the document's state to Informational from BCP,
> now that I understand how we use the latter term here.  However, it
> uses normative language to provide its advice, so I'm wondering if
> this would qualify as an applicability statement regarding email,
> meaning it should aim for Standards Track, or if instead I should
> avoid use of RFC2119 language and make leave it Informational.

I would be very uncomfortable making it Standards Track, because of
the many comments against "standardizing" the handling of
malformations -- making it look too much like declaring the
malformations to be acceptable in the standard.  I actually do think
that Applicability Statement is the right classification for this
document, but hesitate to use it because of that concern.

If consensus gets behind making it an Applicability Statement at
Proposed Standard, with all the appropriate text stressing that this
is standardizing mechanisms for coping with malformations, and that
the malformations themselves remain in violation of all specified
standards, then I'm happy to go there.  But I'd really need to see
strong consensus for that, rather than anything particularly rough.

Otherwise, yes, Informational looks good.

So let's make that an explicit call for comments: Is there a way we
can put this forth in the document so that we can get the consensus I
describe above?

Barry, responsible AD