On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Dave Crocker wrote:
As I said, one can start with concrete specifications and
seek to do minimal changes, or one can go down the path of
a working group design and development project, starting
with a clean slate.
Requirements are not contrary to either approach.
right. that's why they are already in the draft charter.
I don't think we can possibly specify requirements in proper amount
of detail in the group charter. And the very general ones we do already
have (i.e. want encryption based email signature standard that
can be added automaticly by mail transfer agents).
so i suspect this exchange is about the amount of effort and time
to put into stating requirements. and i see that as getting back
to the question of urgency. if folks want something soon, then
the group needs to have a plan that permits this. if folks do
not see much urgency in standardizing this mechanisms, then we
can have a more leisurely schedule.
I don't think many want another failure of trying to get something
done in 3 months (and we're already past original plant to have WG
started after August and I don't see anybody complaining about additional
3 month delay). My schedule of 1 year seems quite appropriate - it is both
more agressive then almost any other IETF WG and it provides for enough
time to both evaluate requirements and come with multiple solutions and
compare them, etc.
however, meeting an aggressive schedule requires that the working
group participate accordingly.
That is very true. The one year schedule I proposed is still very very
agressive and will require working group members to put a lot of their
time and effort to get this done. To compare I think this is about 3-4
times faster schedule then S/MIME (which is the closest comparison we
have for similar work).
William Leibzon, Elan Networks:
Anti-Spam and Email Security Research Worksite: