Re: [ietf-smtp] draft-freed-smtp-limits

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 3:10 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

> What 5321bis sets up is that both are permanent, but the
> registry identifies registrations based on the path they
> followed (and allows FCFS ones to be reregistered by the
> submitter under IETF review-like provisions).  That was a
> pragmatic choice (possibly largely mine but the WG has not
> objected) based on a desire to avoid figuring out what
> "provisional" actually means and, in particular, sounding like
> those FCFS registrations were not "real" until they were pushing
> into IETF consideration.  Of course, identifying the model used
> allows someone looking at the registry to tell the difference
> between "someone's bright idea" and "something actually
> considered by the IETF".  Presumably the latter still has value.
>

I think that sort of model is probably fine too.  My suggestion was just
based on other registries (header fields and URI schemes come to mind)
where the provisional/permanent model seems to have worked.

If this is a model that we think might be useful for other future
registries to follow, then getting it into 8126bis makes perfect sense to
me.  The provisional/permanent model is much older but since it's known to
work, we could talk about that approach as well.  What I don't know,
though, is timing; 8126bis has not, as far as I know, gotten off the ground
yet, and I wouldn't want to see 5321bis avoidably delayed.

-MSK