>> However, a BCP is mainly about describing what is done today.
>
> That's incorrect. A BCP describes what is done today based on currently
> published standards track technology. When what's deployed is not standards
> track, as is the case with the MUA to server hop that DEEP covers, I see no
> way
> to write a useful BCP on the topic.
>
I'm not sure splitting hairs on the meaning of "BCP" is useful or
interesting.
What I was trying to say is that I think it would be useful and
interesting to document existing deployment practices of hop-by-hop tls
for email.
My understanding is that that is not what you and Keith are trying
to achieve with DEEP (and I agree that the WG should be talking about
the content of DEEP rather than the classification of the document)-
Cheers Leif
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
