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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Tuesday, March 19, 2024 10:26 -0700 Dave Crocker
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.

FWIW, I largely agree with Dave, including about the
indigestible dumpling metaphor.  The observation that this WG
seemed to reach one conclusion then changed its mind and moved
in the opposite direction reinforces that point.

   john