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

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
> > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:32 PM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > 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?

AS seems like a good fit to me. It's not *the* applicability statment for SMTP
by any means, but then again I've never viewed AS-on-foo as having to cover
everything about protocol foo.

I'd like to see more documents about applicability of various protocols to
address various issues; this seems like a good step in that direction.

				Ned