Re: [ietf-smtp] Should we update an RFC if people refuse to implement parts of it ?

Sam Varshavchik <mrsam@courier-mta.com> Fri, 04 June 2021 22:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mrsam@courier-mta.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 8A4F73A22DD for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 15:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.435
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_PBL=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3zPk3ruOFMs8 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 15:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailx.courier-mta.com (mailx.courier-mta.com [68.166.206.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F20213A22DC for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 15:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from monster.email-scan.com (monster.email-scan.com [::ffff:192.168.0.2]) (TLS: TLSv1.3,256bits,TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by www.courier-mta.com with UTF8SMTPS id 0000000000220C93.0000000060BAA3DD.000037AE; Fri, 04 Jun 2021 18:06:20 -0400
Received: from monster.email-scan.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (IDENT: uid 1004) by monster.email-scan.com with UTF8SMTP id 00000000000208D0.0000000060BAA3DC.00007970; Fri, 04 Jun 2021 18:06:20 -0400
References: <2021052700585304660213@cnnic.cn> <YK7E1dBKneP8B8Ib@straasha.imrryr.org> <01RZNI90M6SS0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com> <E23639ADA7487360C9B5A93C@PSB> <01RZPUQVP8TU0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com> <e9a6ce3e-3f83-a221-d132-fd021a2b5002@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <cone.1622844380.436481.31038.1004@monster.email-scan.com>
X-Mailer: http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/
From: Sam Varshavchik <mrsam@courier-mta.com>
To: ietf-smtp <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 18:06:20 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_monster.email-scan.com-31038-1622844380-0002"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/TLYVDoEBS6a9wT6oN_2yBInt4WQ>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] =?utf-8?q?Should_we_update_an_RFC_if_people_refuse_t?= =?utf-8?q?o_implement_parts_of_it_=3F?=
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 22:06:29 -0000

Dave Crocker writes:

> If the operational industry has voted with its code and clearly prefers A- 
> labels, than the SHOULD is an especially counter-productive choice, since it  
> creates debate about the specification where, really, it has no benefit.  I  
> suspect MAY is the better choice.  It gives permission and even implicit  
> encouragement, but eliminates the standards tension caused by not using U- 
> labels.

The current preference is for A-labels. But after SMTPUTF8 becomes  
customary: at some point it will make sense to interpret SHOULD using its  
original meaning, here.