Re: [Uta] Mirja Kühlewind's Yes on draft-ietf-uta-email-deep-09: (with COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On October 23, 2017 at 10:39:00 PM, Keith Moore ([e-mail])
wrote:

Hi!

I just put the same comment in my Ballot, but to not have the same
discussion on another thread...

> The document reads like a BCP to me. Was it discussed in the group to go
for
> BCP? If yes, why was it decided to go not for BCP? If no, I would strong
> recommend for BCP.

BCP was discussed in the WG, and there was a vocal minority who
advocated it.   My personal feeling was that this is a document that
both specifies protocol (this appropriate for standards track,
especially given the need for demonstrated interoperability to advance
to full Standard) and policy (thus BCP), but the former consideration
tipped the balance in favor of standards track.  And it didn't seem to
make sense to split the document into two pieces. I also (somewhat
reluctantly) attempted to rewrite version -08 to be a BCP, after
versions -00 through -07 were intended as standards track.  But in
Prague (in response to -08) there was strong support that the document
be standards track, so -09 was intended as standards track again.  There
were no objections to that in WGLC.


Maybe that rewrite is what is making it sound so much like a BCP.  The
document talks in many places about recommendations that it makes (not
behavior that it specifies) — and even the Shepherd’s write up says that it
"closely matches much of current practice for how mail services are
operated.”  All that screams BCP to me.

In any case, no need to beat a dead horse; I just wanted my opinion to be
on the record.

Thanks!

Alvaro.