In this email, I revisit the message that I sent to the group five days ago.
While many have continued to "succumb to the temptation to add to the
high-volume small-topic flood" (as worded by Liudvikas Bukys), there has
been progress in several directions. I summarize that progress below. The
purpose of this is twofold: 1) To identify the work items on which the
discussions should focus; and 2) To provide a simple outline for list
members that have been overwhelmed by the volume and are having difficulty
following the big picture.
Milestones/Deliverables:
1. problem statement/ requirements document
Keith Moore and Balachander Krishnamurthy have started a good thread on
"requirements for a proposed solution + notion of consent" (also called
"evaluating proposals against requirements").
Raymie Stata has started a good thread on "Requirements for source tracking"
(turned into "desirable characteristics of source tracking").
2. taxonomy of existing approaches
3. taxonomy of proposed approaches
I will send a simple outline for 2 and 3. Keith Moore and Chris Lewis have
volunteered to contribute to this. I expect that many others will have
feedback as we go through iterations.
In addition, a thread has been started on best common practices for
filtering. These more immediately useful documents are good contributions.
So feel free to continue conversations in this direction.
Please do continue to submit new proposed systems. The best way to submit
these at this point is as, at least, a rough draft of a paper or internet
draft similar to how RMX draft was submitted. However, we will not have the
detailed debate about the proposed systems at this point. We spent about 100
messages on this group arguing the pros and cons of that proposal. Clearly,
this is not the most productive conversation to have at this point.
Similarly, we have seen discussion about 'stamps' or changing the economic
model. It would be useful to gather these ideas into a document that
proposes approaches to accomplish this.
4. evaluation of existing and proposed approaches ( to
include usefulness, monetary cost, affect on normal use of
email, legal support of the solution and vice versa) 5.
transfer of technology (possibly through standards proposals
to the IETF)
We have not yet reached this phase. I believe much of the 'less productive
dialogue' on the group is from persons that are prematurely debating the
details of pros and cons of proposed systems. We will enter this phase once
steps 1 - 3 are further along. This means that, for now, we should minimize
if not eliminate the detailed criticism of proposed systems. As much as
possible, gather your thoughts and responses as input for future discussions
and documents.
I am seeking comments on the charter.
-does the consent-based communication viewpoint sufficiently
generalizes the problem?
There was a thread on this topic that helped to clarify the intended meaning
of this definition. Based on that, I suggest that we move forward with this
definition of the problem rather than spend more time at this point
continuing to debate variations of the traditionally used definitions.
Overall, while there is some amount of value in almost every post that has
been made, due to the volume of messages on this list, we must focus our
dialogue so that everyone can follow the more productive conversations that
are taking place.
Regards,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg