> Pete Resnick wrote: > >> Questions abound around the mechanisms for sending an email and >> ensuring that it is delivered in a stated time interval on the >> order of minutes or that an indication of failure is returned to >> the sender... > > That, in particular, seems like a relatively easy extension to > RFC 3461 (by adding some sort of additional parameter value to > DELAY). Not exactly rocket science. Not exactly requiring > spinning up a WG. Please keep in mind that this is your (Pete Resnick's) solution to the question/issue that Fred brought up. Your solution may be the best one, it may be part of a larger more encompassing solution, or it may not be applied. But the point is that this part of the discussion (ie, specific solutions), and its merits, should not be here on the IETF list. Instead, we should ask whether issues/questions that motivate the re-charter are valid or at least reasonable to be addressed in IEPREP. and my apologies if I'm taking your last sentence out of context, but the thread involves re-chartering an existing WG, not starting from scratch. Its my view that the proposed re-charter is an evolutionary progression of what currently exists, as opposed to a new group or a new direction that is 180 degrees from what was done in the past. -ken |
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf