> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Franck Martin <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > While the I-D will likely expires they will not be removed from the
> > website, so references will still work, so I don't see as that bad that
> > they are properly referenced in this document. I however agree we should
> > provide a quick summary for people that do not need the details.
> >
> On the flipside, I don't see what value they add; the ones that gain
> consensus will be published in their own right, and the details of the ones
> that don't probably aren't interesting to later readers anyway.
Generally speaking IETF Consensus/Publication != Adoption and Use. There are a
number of drafts that never made it to RFC that contain information on stuff
that did in fact deploy. (Although the best example of this by far is actually
in X.400, where one of the most widely used text bodypart types was only ever
described in a preliminary draft.)
That said, I'm dubious of the value of this section in a more general sense,
since in-progress work is likely to shift and change in unexpected ways,
which could easily make any description we provide more confusing than not.
I personally would prefer to limit this sort of thing to descrptions of
things we know are currently deployed to some degree. It's then up to
future work to describe it's own interoperability issues, which is going
to be a requirement for anything that makes it to RFC status anyhow.
And yes, this does leave the door open for something that doesn't make it to
RFC but does achieve some degree of deployment. But I think we have enough
current issues to cover without trying to detail the nature of future ones.
Ned
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
