At 11:03 23-05-2011, Dave CROCKER wrote: >Then you are using criteria that go beyond the requirements of a BCP. > > From RFC 2026: > > "5. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs > > The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to > standardize practices and the results of community deliberations. > ... > The BCP subseries creates a smoothly > structured way for these management entities to insert proposals into > the consensus-building machinery of the IETF while gauging the > community's view of that issue." > >Nothing in the definition of BCPs require that it be limited to >covering existing practice.
This creates debates along the lines of "the RFC says so" or "the IETF says that this should be the practice". >Perhaps the wording is a bit more coarse than one would like, but at >base, "telling the community what to do" is what standards-track and >BCP documents do, whether based on existing practice or not. A RFC is a way of telling the community what you did and how you did it. If people believes it is a good idea, they will pick it up. I'll diverge from the topic. Let's say that you are writing a proposal and there is a controversial issue. You are technically correct in your arguments but there are several people who disagrees with you on the issue. Your options are: (i) Don't make a change (assuming the IESG is fine with that) (ii) Make a change to gain goodwill (they will implement your proposal) I leave it to the IETF to determine which option to pick. >Not really. The latter paragraph merely notes that there are >receivers that do not understand what a DKIM signature means. I'll stick to my previous comments on this to avoid further distractions to the draft. >You country has one of those, too? No, but I came across abuse reports where the people mentions that they will contact one of those about the matter. :-) >Again, we seem to have an attempt to impose a more stringent >requirement on qualifying for BCP status than exists in IETF formal >documentation. At 11:43 23-05-2011, John Levine wrote: >But since this argument seems to be all about proving that we've >followed the official process rather than about publishing something >accurate and useful rather than speculative and misleading, who cares? >Now that I understand the rules, I plan to publish all of my >experiments as BCPs. One little gem from an I-D which will be published as a BCP is that the information is intended to reflect "consensus on the ground". A RFC is not worth a pinch of salt if it override that. Regards, -sm _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
