Hi John,
At 15:51 09-08-2011, John C Klensin wrote:
Let me suggest a possible alternative which is workable
independent of whether we keep the WG going:
-- If the sorts of suggestions that Barry, Alessandro, Mykyta,
and maybe others have made for revision have an traction beyond
those who proposed them, let's find an editor and record keeper
(perhaps Barry if he is so inclined; I think it is actually
better if it isn't me) and revise and update
5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation. If the plan is to shut the WG down
(and I'm with the others in the meeting consensus on that
subject), let the designated editor put it out as an individual
draft.
Pete commented on shutting down the working group. I don't see any
indication to change the plan.
If Barry steps forward to update 5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation, the
above may be workable as long as there is a substantive number of
YAM WG participants that want to participate in the work.
Use that I-D as a living document to consolidate and summarize
discussions and conclusions, to draw errata together, and, where
appropriate, to record suggestions about specific textual
changes to 5321. Discussions of which suggestions are
appropriate can use the SMTP list or a residual YAM one at your
preference.
I'm with Dave on this; i.e. if it is a narrow effort, it may be worth
doing. I am not keen about having a living document as it is an
invitation for prolonged discussions.
The editor and other interested parties agree that
5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-bis is an appropriate place only for
editorial and other changes that would be appropriate for an
upgrade from Draft-> Full Standard or, at most, for recycling in
grade at Draft. Any proposal that contains even small elements
of new features or changes to requirements gets written up in a
separate draft and the authors/ proponents work with you (or
whomever the sitting AD is) to figure out how to get it
processed. Similarly, those who want to see 5321 revised in
order to provide a comprehensive roadmap for SMTP (I interpret a
few of the suggestions as being along those lines) are free to
generate a new "roadmap" draft and see if they can get traction,
but we don't use 5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-bis as a vehicle
for that purpose.
I haven't seen any separate draft since this working group has been
chartered. I presume that there isn't any interest in introducing
new features.
At some point in the future, when the celestial omens align
correctly, we open 5321 and perform the relatively simple job of
folding in editorial changes that appear to have been agreed
upon, then see if we have consensus to publish with those
changes.
That model would accomplish several things, including...
-- It would get 5321bis out of the perceived critical
path for shutting down YAM. It would also get questions
about the future of the standards track out of that
critical path.
-- It would reduce or eliminate the likelihood of having
substantive arguments about what 5321bis should say
(substantively) going on at the same time as we are
trying to agree on how to say it. Trying to do the two
at the same time is one of the reasons the document is a
mess today.
-- Various ideas that have been proposed for inclusion
for 5321bis but that would be very controversial (at
least), and possibly inconsistent with advancing the
document, have a chance to be put forward separately and
to mature.
-- It would permit making progress on the outline and
general content of 5321bis without any risk of
interfering with, or waiting on, EAI, DKIM, and perhaps
other efforts that at least vaguely interact with it and
that draw on many of the same resources.
Is that helpful?
Yes. I'll leave it to the people who want to see the work done to
see which alternative is suitable.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
