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
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
