Subject: alternative recommendations for submission of mail

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:41:25 -0400

In response to Dave Crocker's challenge to me to submit replacement
text for portions of draft-hutzler-spamops-04.txt, I decided to try my
hand at writing my own set of recommendations with similar (though not
identical) scope.    I did this both because it seemed difficult to be
to supply isolated sections of text that would remedy the problems I
saw with that document, and also as an exercise to see whether _I_
could describe the desired behavior with appropriate clarity and
precision.

I believe (though I may be demonstrated to be wrong) that these
recommendations are more precisely worded and at least those
recommendations that are similar in both documents are more correctly
stated in mine. In addition, a comparison between the two documents may
reveal some issues that might require further discussion before any 
recommendations are formally adopted.

For the sake of expediency (as in, I haven't had time to figure out
what additional hoops I need to jump through to submit an I-D these
days) my initial draft is available as a web page:
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/opinions/email-submission-recommendations.html

If there's sufficient interest I will post a revised version as an
Internet-Draft.  However I'm happy to support the Hutzler document (as
I believe we substantially agree on intent) if it can be revised to be
more precise and to address concerns that have been raised.

Keith

p.s. the referenced web page is intended as an IETF contribution and is 
subject to all provisions  of Section 3 of RFC 3667.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 06:21:40 -0400

> http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/opinions/email-submission-recommendations.html

   I wish to compliment Keith on an excellent first draft.

   Alas, there's no hope of reaching consensus on all his points.

   Personally, I'd be willing to work on editing his points into
draft-hutzler-spamops: I believe a BCP can be improved by explaining
where and why consensus fails to emerge.

   Alas, personalities here have a history of clashing; so I'm not sure
how much progress we can hope for...

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: wayne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:28:24 -0500

In <[email-masked]> Keith Moore <[email-masked]> writes:

> identical) scope.    [big snip]

I liked your document also.  I'm not sure if you can reach consensus
on all the issues and I'm not sure that your document is enough better
to delay the publication of spamops until a consensus is reached.
Considering the quickly changing environment of email, it might not be
out of line to start planning the next BCP now.

Anyway, I did notice a couple of editorial problems:

* you use MDN only once, and never define it.

* s/client to of a service/client of a service/

I did not spend the time to compare and contrast your document with
the spamops one.  It has actually been at least a week since I last
re-read spamops, so I'm not clear what all the differences between
your two drafts are.  I like them both though.

-wayne