Re: WG Action: Formed Mail Maintenance (mailmaint) / Commitment

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi John, Murray, and all,

I note that the independent submissions series is mentioned in the charter.  Indeed the ISE both published and rejected proposals involving mail in the not too distant past.  RFC 9477 would have met the bar for mailmaint.  RFC 9228 tries to document a header that has seen sporadic and inconsistent use since the 1990s.

Even for independent submissions, some indication of implementation is important.  I have a simple basis: if authors haven't implemented, why should they expect anyone else to?  It is true that sometimes just a concept is interesting, but some test of that concept is even more interesting.*

One note of caution to prospective authors and the IETF: people should take care to consider the interoperability considerations of taking up work that has been previously published as an informational or experimental independent submission.  Neither the email header nor structure itself are versioned.

Eliot

*Bad ideas can be coded, and will not be published unless it is a matter of defending against them.

On 24.05.2024 00:24, John C Klensin wrote:
Hi.

I've watched this discussion go back and forth without, AFAICT,
discernable progress.  I am nervous about the WG myself for reasons
that have not featured prominently in the discussions.  Let me
suggest a slightly different way to look at things in the hope of
allowing both those who are concerned (and/or outraged) and those who
think the idea is great to get on with our work and lives:

First, I think it is clear to everyone that this type of a WG -- with
DISPATCH-like authority but devoted to a single topic-- is a bit
unusual and that it has something of an experimental feel to it.

Murray is presumably comfortable with the idea of the WG.  His
comments on this thread suggest to me that he has a slightly
different vision of what some of the provisions mean that some of
those who have read the charter do.   He has pointed out repeatedly
that having the WG does not eliminate any of the other paths to
document processing.  Although some of us are not sure how that will
play out in practice, the only way to find out how something works in
practice is to try / practice it.  Interestingly, Murray is now on a
one-year term and has made it quite clear that the odds of his being
willing to seek another one are nearly zero.

So, can we consider this a ten month experiment with an explicit
requirement that the charter, and experience during that period, be
reviewed when Murray's presumed successor takes over next March?   If
the experience has shown up problems, or they (and Orie) are not
comfortable at that point, they/we figure out how to wind it down,
either allowing it to finish work in progress but not consider new
work or just shutting it down as seems appropriate.  Should Murray be
talked into another term, that review occurs anyway -- failure to
conduct it should sunset the WG.   If the conclusion is that it
should go forward, the charter can then be tweaked to accommodate
what we have learned, how some of the concerns have played out, and
whatever adjustments are suggested by that experience. 

It seems to me that the risks of proceeding that way are minimal,
especially since a subset of what might fall into the WG's charter
may turn out to be appropriate topics for the Applicability Statement
work in EMAILCORE.  If, in practice, the bar(s) are too high for work
in this WG and that work can't get past the "normal" DISPATCH process
because the WG exists, relatively little time will have been lost
given how slowly things seem to move these days anyway.  And, next
March, we will have a much better idea about how things actually work
in practice and will presumably have a fresh set of AD eyes on the
subject.  It would defer addressing the important matters of
principle that have been raised now until March but deferring them
until then in order to accumulate experience feels to me as if it
ought to be reasonable-- and quite different from chartering a WG in
a way that could turn permanent by inertia and that would set
precedents.

Any chance that works at least tolerably well for everyone?

best,
   john






[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux