Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

IMO, BCPs are a way for IETF to endorse desirable practices for which the 2026 advancement criteria (e.g. interoperability tests) are not applicable.

On Oct 26, 2011, at 4:24 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> 
> Pete,
> 
> I don't understand, either.  While it lists a /set/ of alternative or complementary best practices, it /is/ about best practices.  Please explain.
> 
> d/
> 
> On 10/25/2011 7:12 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> 
>> (a) This shouldn't be labeled as a BCP. It's an A/S Standards Track draft if
>> ever there was one.
>> (b) Given this and the extension, is it worth spinning up a Greylisting WG?
>> 
>> pr
>> 
>> On 10/23/11 3:40 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>> Maybe a new thread Subject: would help here...
>>> 
>>> Given the interest, I've started putting together a BCP. It's now posted as
>>> draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp; comments welcome (and thanks to those of you
>>> that already did). It is only an outline right now, and I'll fill it in as
>>> people make suggestions about topics it should cover and/or start providing
>>> text to include.
>>> 
>>> It doesn't touch the SMTP extension people are discussing. Someone else can
>>> champion that one if so inclined. That shouldn't go in a BCP because it
>>> doesn't even exist yet. This document will only describe current and historic
>>> practices.
>>> 
>>> Maybe we can get it on the docket for Taipei. I'll send out some friendly pings.
>>> 
>>> -MSK
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
>