[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Recommendations for Automatic Responses to Electronic Mail - <draft-moore-auto-email-response-04.txt>
ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote:
>> Hello,
>
>
>> I co-chair the Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) of the IRTF
>> [www.irtf.org/asrg/]. We have a BCP area within the group which is
>> working on similar issues to the ones mentioned in this draft.
>
>
> I just re-read your charter, and I have to say I think it is a bit of a
> stretch
> to claim it covers the range of issues pertaining to correct operation of
> autoresponders this draft deals with.
>
I reread the charter again and you are correct. Since we now do have a
BCP area, we will look at updating the charter. However, this draft does
deal with some spam issues as well and is relevant in some aspects to
our group.
Writing various BCPs on dealing with spam certainly seems like a reasonable
thing to do. I note, however, that Keith's document was last called for
proposed, not BCP. This is due to the fact that it defines at least one
protocol element, and hence is unsuitable for BCP. While I suppose it is always
possible that the IESG will decide BCP status is more appropriate, this would
conflict with how at least one earlier document that defined a similar protocol
element (RFC 3503) was handled -- it was reclassified by the IESG from BCP to
Proposed.
I mention this less not because of any impact on the review of Keith's
document, but rather because you might want to be aware of the possibility that
other BCP documents you're considering that define protocol elements may end up
not being BCPs at all.
> I finally note that this document is currently in 4 week last call.
> Surely this provides sufficient time for interested parties, both in your group as
> well as outside, to review and comment on it.
> In any case, absent some more specific concern or concerns being given I
> see no
> reason to delay IESG consideration of the document once the last call has
> expired.
The daily volume on the ASRG list is extremely high which is why we
recently formed a dedicated BCP sublist which is low volume and has
private membership. This sub-group is currently reviewing the draft and
will submit specific comments to both the IESG and the author before the
deadline for last call (which I assume is October 31st).
I'm subscribed to the ASRG list, and I certainly agree with your
characterization of it. IMO forming a design subgroup certainly seems like a
reasonable thing to do to make forward progress.
Ned