I really hope you're wrong, because if you're not, the only sensible thing
to do is to tell the mail providers to go ahead and implement the draft,
maybe the IETF will do something, maybe not. Registrar EPP has been
working this way for over a decade, and it would be a shame for IETF
sclerosis to make it happen to mail, too.
I assume you saw the mail on dispatch last month from Sri Somanchi
at Google explaining in detail why they want this, and the various
messages from my co-author Tobias. I believe they're why this advanced
from a random draft to AD sponsored.
R's,
John
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 9/20/2016 10:51 AM, John Levine wrote:
Nothing personal, but for interop purposes, the opinions of ops people
at large mail systems matter a lot more than your opinion or mine.
So, the only discussion I see for this draft is during this last call, on
this list.
I see postings from a total of 4 people, other than yourself and the
sponsoring AD.
None of the content of the postings relate to the issue about which you are
asserting definitive information, above.
That reduces your assertion to one of your own authority on the topic.
No doubt, your assessment is perfectly correct. However the IETF has
typically sought a broader base for assessing such assertions, lest Internet
Standards be reduced to individual whim.
Simply put: The folk who want this spec and who want it to be exactly as
you've specified it need to show up here and post their informed views on the
spec. Otherwise, there is no objective basis for estimating the actual need
or likely uptake of the spec.