Re: [Emailcore] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-10

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 3/18/2024 9:49 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
>
>     This is outside the context of this document obviously, but I'm
>     ambivalent about how to do this. I'm not sure a bunch of RFCs is a
>     good
>     idea, but I'm also not convinced about FCFS.
>
>
> Since I'm the troublemaker here, let me make a suggestion:
>
> For retroactive population of this flag for things already in the 
> registry, the IESG can be asked to approve such a request. At some 
> point we can announce to ietf-822 or other relevant lists that anyone 
> who thinks they have a favorite header field in need of this 
> annotation, someone has to bring it to our attention and request it.

 1. The question of what it means to be a trace field has been sitting
    like an indigestible dumpling in the stomach, for many years. The
    recent round of effort with this is, therefore, quite significant. 
    However it also has no track record of being used.
 2. As a body, the IESG does not seem all that apt for doing the basic
    work of making technical assessments about header fields, per se,
    given its lack of experience in the topic.
 3. For retroactive assessments, it makes sense to create some sort of
    (rough) consensus process among folk with (some) background in this
    space.

So I suggest creating a small group to make a collective recommendation 
for existing header field registrations. Documenting it as an RFC then 
permits a normal IESG approval process.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@[e-mail]