On 8/3/11 4:33 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
At 04:12 AM 8/2/2011, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
+1, I obviously agree! Unfortunately, this option seems to be out of
reach right now. Any chance we can pursue it before shutting down?
Would the WG resolve to considerately complete 5321bis and only it?
I'll summarize the discussion about shutting the YAM WG. There was a
solid consensus on the question of shutting down [1]. J.D. Falk and
Dave Corcker did not object to it [2] [3].
First, I want to say that in the room in Quebec, there was a *STRONG*
feeling that the amount of pain and energy needed to continue work on
any item other than 4409bis, and 5321bis in particular, *FAR* outweighed
the benefit of doing the work. Though Dave only +1'ed, he expressed
rather strong feelings in the room on this topic.
I read the messages from Alessandro Vesely as an objection.
There is no doubt that Alessandro doesn't want to lose the work already
done. That does not in and of itself require the WG to continue to
exist. And as I said, with a sufficient small set of
editor/reviewers/shepherd, I'm happy to take a document on as an
individual submission. But I'm going to want to hear from a good deal
more people than Alessandro, Barry, and Mykyta to convince me that the
WG should continue to exist for this purpose.
Barry Leiba explained the status of 5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation. I
gather that it is clear that the document cannot be published as a RFC
as it was discussed by the IESG as a management item.
It would have to be put on a telechat as a WG document. It could
conceivably be published after that. But let's not get hung up on the
process point. I don't think that document was written in a way that was
intended to be published, and I doubt the IESG would be too thrilled
with it in its current form.
The question on the table is whether there is an chance for the WG to
pursue work on 5321bis before it is shut down. Barry mentioned that
it's a pity to waste the work that was done and that he would really
like to see the current version of SMTP back at full Standard level
[4]. He also volunteered to edit 5321bis document, incorporating the
changes from the pre-evaluation document.
Does the working group think that it is reasonable to give it a go?
I haven't seen any objection to the changes mentioned in the
pre-evaluation document. John Klensin commented [5] on the
description of the extension model in 5321. That is the kind of
change which Barry described as "new discoveries that are so bad that
they absolutely have to be incorporated".
I am open to having the work done. That presumes that the working
group is agreeable to deferring the question of shutting down. If
there is interest in putting two months in this work, the working
group could do the following:
(a) Each WG participant posts a list of proposed changes together
with the
rationale for the change. The WG avoids any discussion of the
proposed
changes at this stage.
(b) I'll list each proposed change in the issue tracker. If there
are two or
more changes that are similar, I'll track them as one if people
agree.
(c) Once the WG has a list of issues, it can estimate the time
required to
get the work done and how to deal with the issues.
The above work can be done under the current charter.
Let me re-frame the question for you: Are there a large number of YAM WG
participants that want to participate in this work? Included in that
question is: Is there an editor who is willing and able (including the
ability to import the XML from John) to take on the task? The
presumption is a strong "No". There should be several strong "Yes"s
(with explanations of why) to overcome that presumption.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
