IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] Registration policies for draft-freed-smtp-limits and elsewhere

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 08 August 2023 01:41 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82643C15107C for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2023 18:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.408
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.408 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b="XM3WfLR/"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b="A3pxOaOU"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cb_3wJfn5SnM for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2023 18:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69AB7C14CE52 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2023 18:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 60497 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2023 01:41:04 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=ec4f.64d19d30.k2308; bh=VfctQXFu+aBqLgn7khdJvD6EcL25Rxvv15RGLkaGtLk=; b=XM3WfLR/GUHVCnGbJIFWOTHpFJXk4TDXjbzoXUXNh5ohePEG7IY4hD5lXjDOzqZcnjVs93Pd6DHw220ErJDc6GAuM0P4V0wBtmOmG8vUoD9XwVH/aSIhQtAoQhvUuIGduF0p9U4r/ZVZLMnoYXQtiSYDrIgL6Au2BlDoAznAAsi0Od1Y3FRg1fjED2Adym1l9zW7QSm7Yb1qZtTbXN5qnFd9Vn7s3T5iHZEJSanY+eGgjvv6zFVQXqRq0ZWWaIfg/xbjk50DkSeNAZzel/Ot8ZerO/AoENLSDOBICE5erug8ho34swBpnrwdhZ1bsWZ+Hbw1iqQrnEXFZQLM9rbIbA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=ec4f.64d19d30.k2308; bh=VfctQXFu+aBqLgn7khdJvD6EcL25Rxvv15RGLkaGtLk=; b=A3pxOaOUNhl3gm1DhmRVCWjGU7oOYrMP/rizBz0SxaW+/R3dcKSmqMoxyz2RLY5E5aP/lbA5TGCFrmKXUhnFTGmWw4sMVBSwDp2I+WyBVNSdcEP5d+hVSSfV33Dc0Od/+k2rv74MzCmLvZKBCoYGmSpiF5Gqj+SBd7XZ29Z0WkJ8Z7pzJYPjsSGo9ypEgIyGcNPuWPV0N6bXfKI22fDseyqrOSBjjcpPj39sby/r1t97Q2ZGr4Jl63JDqW6J2IaMdDXbrdY0smXy4/l69ZryPopXezdSpfxYJKHmXe9fnTrJWi03f+Rhtq90RWRMDgdeY6bP4gp0N/nfCI1tOCURog==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 08 Aug 2023 01:41:04 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 60825FF99CBD; Mon, 7 Aug 2023 21:41:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF354FF99C9F; Mon, 7 Aug 2023 21:41:01 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2023 21:41:01 -0400
Message-ID: <67b52a9a-e813-6739-26b0-c5bc4d63652b@taugh.com>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-X-Sender: johnl@ary.qy
In-Reply-To: <AF50656EECDFAD9BD76D06DA@PSB>
References: <20230807193510.EF3EDFF945E9@ary.qy> <AF50656EECDFAD9BD76D06DA@PSB>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/LSte3n-ubSIGkD-gxJHfDbWPGeE>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Registration policies for draft-freed-smtp-limits and elsewhere
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2023 01:41:12 -0000

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023, John C Klensin wrote:
> I agree with the small-vs-large distinction.  I'm, separately,
> getting increasingly skeptical of how well some of our
> "expert"-based models are working ...

> (1) Small registry/ scarce resources: Probably Standards Action,
> to protect the resource, to raise the odds of high-quality
> documentation, and to provide a discussion venue for options
> other than registration if needed.  One could think about some
> sort of "IETF consensus to register" model, but that would
> probably amount to that same thing  in practice and would
> require specifying a new process.
>
> (2.1) Registrant intends to provide good documentation, wants
> advice, community input, or whatever value official IETF
> approval brings.  Standards Action.
>
> (2.2) Registrant does not want any of those things, just to get
> the string registered.  Or tries for 2.1 and either loses or
> gives up.  FCFS. ...

> Is that more or less what you had in mind?

Looks good to me.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email