Re: Recommendations for Automatic Responses to Electronic Mail - <draft-moore-auto-email-response-04.txt>

[ned.freed@mrochek.com]

> At 7:08 AM -0700 2003/10/15, ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote:

> >  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.

> 	Very good point.  Perhaps what we call the BCP subgroup today
> should instead be re-named the "RFC" or "documents" subgroup, in that
> we deal with BCPs as well as other types of published documents
> (RFCs).

> 	Thoughts?

Seems like a reasonable change to me, but then again I'm no expert on the
IRTF way of doing business.

As long as we're talking about ASRG and document review, I've been tracking the
work on "Sender Permitted From" that's going on over at:

   http://spf.pobox.com/

It seems likely the SPF folks will present their specification to  the IETF at
some point. I know the ASRG is working on a similar proposal. I'm curious to
know how you see this working out and how these multiple, similar
proposals would, could, or should be reconciled.

				Ned

P.S. In case it isn't obvious, I'm intentionally steering clear of whether
or not any of these lightweight authorization schemes are actually a good
idea. It is going to be interesting to see how that particular argument
plays out in the IETF.