On 2008-06-05 3:14, Charles Lindsey wrote: > We need some means of saying "ADSP has defined what Senders may put in an > ADSP record. Here is what Verifiers are intended/expected to do with it", > but without using Normative Language for the Verifiers (since we cannot > even REQUIRE that they Verify at all, let alone do it any particular way). > > If you don't like the term BCP because the practices we are proposing are > not yet "current", then let us use some other term implying > non-normativeness.
It seems as if this is something the IETF tends to be spectacularly bad at. I agree that there's a need, but there are other organizations which might be more suited to writing this particular document. At least one of 'em is already considering it, but we're waiting for the IETF to finish ADSP first. Will that ever happen? -- J.D. Falk Return Path Work with me! http://www.returnpath.net/careers/
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
