Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp
Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com> Fri, 28 October 2011 04:30 UTC
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9S4U0At048078 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:30:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.13.5/Submit) id p9S4U0jw048077; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:30:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9S4TxdU048072 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:29:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from presnick@qualcomm.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=presnick@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1319776199; x=1351312199; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; z=Message-ID:=20<4EAA2F74.9040100@qualcomm.com>|Date:=20Th u,=2027=20Oct=202011=2023:28:36=20-0500|From:=20Pete=20Re snick=20<presnick@qualcomm.com>|User-Agent:=20Mozilla/5.0 =20(Macintosh=3B=20U=3B=20Intel=20Mac=20OS=20X=2010.6=3B =20en-US=3B=20rv:1.9.1.9)=20Gecko/20100630=20Eudora/3.0.4 |MIME-Version:=201.0|To:=20"Murray=20S.=20Kucherawy"=20<m sk@cloudmark.com>|CC:=20"ietf-smtp@imc.org"=20<ietf-smtp@ imc.org>|Subject:=20Re:=20draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp |References:=20<F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14BF C@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>=20<4EA6EE1A.5010804@qualcom m.com>=20<4EA7C3AF.1070402@dcrocker.net>=20<2188C106-043B -4A59-A09C-D88E7B17C307@network-heretics.com>=20<4EA8226D .80303@qualcomm.com>=20<F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1 9C6C14CFA@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>|In-Reply-To:=20<F58 33273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14CFA@EXCH-C2.corp.clou dmark.com>|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"ISO -8859-1"=3B=20format=3Dflowed|Content-Transfer-Encoding: =207bit|X-Originating-IP:=20[172.30.48.1]; bh=LhLlxKBNX+dAw/3hisBwbgiyewWGriaRGDyITdtzb8I=; b=s5Zn1URJbyo9RK//fxQ21l5S0kLarlmCTZbJfNcbxf2XSHwRMmQKGUZ8 DKjQiSc2bXYuIdR+/COSAdGyVmIY4kirxCkTmu28K7RKxGQ1QXb68hqCu /5meyRhOqw5NuZiurAorvz9kk2pYQ3iTUqKzAm99LN7bVtDtrTLAWlZcf s=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6512"; a="131606195"
Received: from ironmsg04-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.18]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2011 21:29:59 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,416,1315206000"; d="scan'208";a="177296300"
Received: from nasanexhc04.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.17]) by Ironmsg04-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 27 Oct 2011 21:29:59 -0700
Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:28:40 -0700
Message-ID: <4EAA2F74.9040100@qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:28:36 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
CC: "ietf-smtp@imc.org" <ietf-smtp@imc.org>
Subject: Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14BFC@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <4EA6EE1A.5010804@qualcomm.com> <4EA7C3AF.1070402@dcrocker.net> <2188C106-043B-4A59-A09C-D88E7B17C307@network-heretics.com> <4EA8226D.80303@qualcomm.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14CFA@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14CFA@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1]
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-smtp.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
On 10/26/11 11:37 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Pete Resnick >> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 8:08 AM >> To: Keith Moore >> Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net; ietf-smtp@imc.org >> Subject: Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp >> >> I think Keith has it pretty spot-on. BCPs are for documents where it >> makes no sense to talk about the concepts of (to quote 2026) "protocol, >> service, procedure, convention, or format", "particular methods of using >> a [technical specification]", "specify particular values or ranges, of >> TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol that must be >> implemented", "interoperability", and "implementation and/or operational >> experience". >> > Herein lies my confusion. What is a Best Current Practices document if not one that talks about conventions, particular methods of using the thing a specification defines, [improved] interoperability, or relating of operational experience? > I say it just below: A BCP document gives guidelines to operators and administrators, gives statements of architectural principle, or documents procedures and operations of the IETF itself. BCPs ought not have conventions and particular methods of using a technical specification, etc. If a document is defines conventions and particular methods of using a technical specification, then there can be implementations of the document, and therefore incremental experience with it, and it therefore should be on the standards track. If a document defines ways of being interoperable with a technical specification, then there can be implementations of the document, and therefore incremental experience with it, and it therefore should be on the standards track. All of these kinds of statements (and the additional ones I cite above) are applicability statements, and those statements can be implemented, and we can get incremental experience with those statements, and therefore documents with those statements belong on the standards track. >> My personal take is >> that BCPs should be reserved to guidelines for operators and >> administrators, statements of architectural principles, and >> documentation of procedures and operations of the IETF itself. >> > That sounds right, but some of it seems (to me) to conflict with the citations you made. I suspect there's some (pardon the allusion) grey area in there that makes it hard, for me at least, to see clearly when something should be a BCP and something should be an AS. > The only grey area would be the guidelines for operators. But when I say guidelines for operators, I'm thinking of things like the amount of available disk space required to run a typical SMTP server getting 10's of messages per second or the recommendation to get an SMTP server with a robust logging facility because of the need to check error reports, things that really aren't part of the implementation of the protocol, but are local conventions for the use of implementations. Those usually belong in BCPs, though sometimes we see such statements in standards track documents too. The distinction I want to make is: If you're giving implementation specifications or guidance for the protocol, those belongs as part of a standards track document, whether they are statements in the protocol document itself or statements in a standalone document (which I've been calling an AS). We make these statements all of the time as part of standards track documents, and the act of separating them into a standalone document apart from the technical specification doesn't mean they don't belong on the standards track. BCPs should only be used when putting something on the standards track makes no sense. pr -- Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
- Re: Per-session SMTP extensions Hector Santos
- Re: Per-session SMTP extensions (was: Re: 4yz Tem… Peter J. Holzer
- Re: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … Robert A. Rosenberg
- Re: Per-session SMTP extensions (was: Re: 4yz Tem… Robert A. Rosenberg
- Re: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … John C Klensin
- Re: Per-session SMTP extensions (was: Re: 4yz Tem… John C Klensin
- Re: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … John C Klensin
- Re: Per-session SMTP extensions (was: Re: 4yz Tem… Peter J. Holzer
- Re: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … Hector Santos
- Re: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … Paul Smith
- Re: Per-session SMTP extensions Carl S. Gutekunst
- Per-session SMTP extensions (was: Re: 4yz Tempora… John C Klensin
- Re: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … Carl S. Gutekunst
- Re: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … Hector Santos
- Re: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … John C Klensin
- Proposal: SMTP Ext - Base protocol for structured… Hector Santos
- RE: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … Murray S. Kucherawy
- RE: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … SM
- Re: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … Paul Smith
- Re: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … Hector Santos
- Re: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … Peter J. Holzer
- RE: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … Carl S. Gutekunst
- RE: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … Hector Santos
- Re: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … John C Klensin
- Re: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … Hector Santos
- Re: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … Hector Santos
- Re: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … Robert A. Rosenberg
- Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp Pete Resnick
- Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp Dave CROCKER
- Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp Pete Resnick
- Re: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … SM
- Re: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … Hector Santos
- Re: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … John C Klensin
- 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP Prot… Hector Santos
- Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp Dave CROCKER
- Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp Dave CROCKER
- RE: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp Murray S. Kucherawy
- RE: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp Hector
- Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp Keith Moore
- Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp Pete Resnick
- Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp John C Klensin
- Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp Steve Atkins
- Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp Dave CROCKER
- Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp Tim Kehres
- Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp Pete Resnick
- Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp Dave CROCKER
- Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp Pete Resnick
- Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp Keith Moore
- Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp Dave CROCKER
- RE: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp Pete Resnick
- draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: 4yz Temporary Rejections is part of the SMTP … Jeff Macdonald