IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Thu, 27 October 2011 04:37 UTC

Received: from hoffman.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9R4b5x6091133 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Oct 2011 21:37:05 -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 p9R4b5L5091132; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 21:37:05 -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 ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9R4b4pG091127 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 21:37:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from msk@cloudmark.com)
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 21:37:04 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "ietf-smtp@imc.org" <ietf-smtp@imc.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 21:37:02 -0700
Subject: RE: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp
Thread-Topic: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp
Thread-Index: AcyT8aV0FviY1e0gQX+7WO+6+87wUgAb+0+g
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14CFA@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <4EA8226D.80303@qualcomm.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by hoffman.proper.com id p9R4b5pF091128
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>

> -----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?

> 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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email