Re: Experimental (was: Re: homework, not an experiment, draft-crocker-email-deliveredto)

--On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 14:37 -0700 "Murray S. Kucherawy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:19 AM John C Klensin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> [...]
>> * treat this a something new, with a new header field name,
>> and proceed to describe that new thing.  Presumably that
>> should include a discussion of why it is different and
>> implementations should provide it instead or in in addition
>> to Delivered-to, Envelope-to, Received...for, and anything
>> else that is considered particularly relevant, [...]
> 
> 
> I would like to take this opportunity, given the number of
> implementers in the room (guten tag, Claus!), to ask:
> 
> Hypothetically, if this work were to take the path of
> declaring a new code point for this purpose, what's the
> likelihood of adoption?
> 
> Please note "instead of or in addition to" in the sentiment
> above.

Murray, two clarifying questions, both orthogonal to Viktor's
comments/questions:

(1) By "new code point", you mean "new header field and header
field name", right?

(2) Would a useful supplemental question be 'if you already have
something roughly equivalent to "Delivered-to:" (however you
define that), would you be more likely to make changes to adopt
a new field or to adapt your field to a new, Experimental,
"Delivered-to:" spec descended from
draft-crocker-email-deliveredto-09 if the details in that spec
were nailed down sufficiently that changes might be needed?'.

The second question is predicated by the assumption (which might
be incorrect) that, if the "Delivered-to:" spec is purely
descriptive of existing implementations up to some point and
ignores or hand-waves around any differences among those
implementations, we would (or should) be talking about an
informational spec, not an Experimental one ... unless the core
experiment is to determine whether the document is accurate, and
that, IMO, would fail the BCP 9 criteria you were asking about.

best,
   john