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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Sunday, August 6, 2023 18:25 -0700 "Murray S. Kucherawy"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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. 

Partially inspired by how far 8126bis has progressed in the last
year or two and the amount of text on the subject in rfc5321bis,
I was afflicted by a combination of frustration and energy over
the weekend.  Watch this (virtual) space.

    john