On 7/20/2014 2:54 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
I have delusions that those two should not differ significantly and that
the WG can produce at least enough of an outline of what ought to be
done in short finite time that the IETF's MTA folks will be able to make
changes. That is, after all, the way our process is *supposed* to work.
I understand the vastness of my delusions, but I am motivated to get
phase 1 of the charter completed quickly.
In the late 80s, which was the beginning of the Internet's commercial
market, my group produced Internet protocol stacks.
Europe was 25% of our revenues, in spite of being the hotbed of OSI --
"OSI created the market; the Internet satisfied it." (sm)
One of my larger customers was the manager of the IT department at ISO...
I asked whether he got hassled about that and with no accompanying smile
he said that he had a job to do and they didn't get to tell him how to
do it.
The IETF ops folks have an immediate requirement. They should not be
forced to wait on a yet-unformed working group and unknown delays after
it is formed, before dealing with that problem.
Michael described immediate and consequential problems.
They need immediate and useful actions.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net