--On Wednesday, 29 January, 2003 13:06 -0800 "ned.freed@mrochek.com" <ned.freed@mrochek.com> wrote:
Ned, this one is _lots_ better. I'll leave sorting out how the wrong version got posted to the IESG and the Secretariat. But my primary concern (and one of those on which Pete and I are apparently in agreement) remains: when I read "enhance...IMAP", I don't infer "narrow the protocol for use in this environment" or "specify a way to use the existing protocol to accomodate these needs". Instead, I infer "new feature", "new capability", and "putting more stuff into the protocol". I think there is considerable resistance in the community to making IMAP bigger -- while the four messages that have shown up on the list are not much of a sample, I observe that at least three of them have included "make it smaller, not larger" positions.I agree. And unfortunately, I think this is due to a serious problem about which I'm quite distressed:The proposed charter contained in the announcement is *not* the proposed charter worked out on the LEMONADE BOF mailing list. Not even close. The one on the list went through several revisions to include specific language in the work items about profiling of existing protocols, and that language has been removed in what was posted here. The one on the list was tailored specifically to avoid having the working group add to existing protocols (with IMAP as only one example) unless absolutely necessary, but rather to profile existing protocols if that solved the problem. The present charter gives the incorrect impression that the desire of the group is simply to add extensions, specifically to IMAP.Well, as it happens the charter that was posted to ietf-announce wasn't the one the IESG approved either. It is one from quite a few versions back. I've attached the current charter below.
If the community believes all that has been said in Atlanta and on the "problem-statement" list about raising architectural issues early in the life of a WG rather than hitting the WG during Last Call (and you can be assured that several of us will scream loudly if this WG emits large extensions to IMAP without really clear justification), then charter-time is the time to fix this one. If the intent that all of us have is the same --which I suspect to be the case-- then all that is needed is to fix text to make that intent clear to the community and to WG members who have not participated in the previous discussions. That should be helpful for the Chair(s), for the ADs and for the community.
Then this is an objection to the textual form of the charter version you posted as well as to the form the Secretariat posted. If the "extend IMAP" issues are settled, then let's get that fact documented in the charter to prevent later surprises and unpleasantness. If they are not, then let's eitherFirst, a process point: If these significant changes were made by the IESG to what was submitted, these should have been brought back to the list for approval.I regard this as being up to the chair of the group. The charter that wasn't posted was iterated on by both the chairs and the IESG.
* Hold a review of those issues by some body whose
responsibility is to the Internet, and Internet mail,
infrastructure is taken broadly, not just accomodating a
few new capabilities. Have that review before the WG is
initiated, and make its conclusions binding on the WG.
* Provide, in the charter, a community review point at
the initiation of significant extension work on IMAP or
anything else(were such work to be initiated), so that
we don't get a pushback situation well into the 11th
hour.
regards,
john