The Applications Area Working Group (appsawg) requests the publication of draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting as a Proposed Standard Applicability Statement.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
The title and header describe the document as an Applicability Statement and a Standards Track document, respectively. The document describes how to apply the SMTP protocol for a specific use case. The document started life as a BCP, but seemed to fit better as an AS. One participant mildly objected to the change, thinking that this doesn't fit the meaning of AS. The sense is that AS is the right approach, but there wasn't a lot of discussion on the point.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
Preferred techniques for handling email abuse explicitly identify good actors and bad actors, giving each significantly differential service. In some cases an actor does not have a known reputation; this can justify providing degraded service, until there is a basis for provider better service. This latter approach is known as "greylisting". Broadly, the term refers to any degradation of service for an unknown or suspect source, over a period of time.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
There was nothing of note. Because this is documenting existing practice, there was broad agreement no real debate about the technical details. Document development was mostly a matter of wordsmithing and clarifying, to make sure the text was accurate and complete.
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
This technique is quite widely implemented, and has been discussed in the community for some time. This is documenting that implementation, demonstrating how to apply SMTP to this use case.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Alexey Melnikov is the document shepherd. Barry Leiba is the responsible AD.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
The document has had good review from the community, and is ready for publication. The shepherd has reviewed it and has no issues with it.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
The document describes existing usage of SMTP in a specific usage scenario. I expect and welcome the usual SecDir review. I also encourage an OpsDir review, though no significant operational problems have occurred as this technique has been in use in the field.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
There are no IPR disclosures related to this document, and no one involved with the document is aware of any issues in this regard.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
The working-group consensus is solid. The email community consensus is likewise solid, and quite broad.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.
There is a normative reference to RFC 5598 (Internet Mail Architecture), an Informational document. It is in the downref registry.
(16) Will publication of this document change to the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
This document does not change the status of any other document.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
No actions are requested of IANA, and the IANA Considerations section says so.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
No formal language is used in this document.