On 8 Nov 2024, at 6:53, Eliot Lear wrote:
Hi!
On 07.11.2024 22:10, Jim Fenton wrote:
On 7 Nov 2024, at 18:21, Mark E. Mallett wrote:
To gain widespread adoption, it is expected that design proposals
will
be tested during the development of specifications. The working
group
will favor designs that are tested at scale and may dismiss those
that
are not.
I would probably be "out of favor" in that regard.
I also think that’s a bit of a strange provision. It seems to give
large email providers, those who can test at scale, an unusual amount
of veto power should there be something they don’t like.
I don't want the WG to produce science experiments that those
providers simply won't deploy. the question is whether to address it
in the charter or through the WG rough consensus process.
Pragmatically I'd like to have the argument once. So maybe now is a
good time?
Eliot
Yeah, I helped in crafting that sentence and Eliot's view is what we
were going for: It's not that you need to be a large provider, but the
expectation is that if you've got implementation and can show that it
interoperates at reasonable scale, that should be taken as evidence that
we're on the right path and win out over other choices. That is, we want
to say overtly and up front in the charter that we're taking the
"running code" part seriously and the chairs are empowered to enforce
that. If that's not clear from the current text, I'm sure wordsmithing
would be welcome.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
