-----Original Message-----
From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:32 PM
To: Paul Judge; 'asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org'
Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. General - Group Direction
Is there active maintenance being done on these documents in
response to
the activity on the mailing list? Some of these documents
look out of date.
Additionally, are list discussions being summarized?
I answered these two questions in a message to the group just three days
ago: "Beyond this, we are working to keep the ASRG website and the summary
of mailing list discussions updated more often. We will also begin to create
regular summaries of the mailing list discussions. A group member has agreed
to contribute to these roles. We are working out the details such as how
often this will occur, etc."
I've had one person agree to help with these tasks. Due to the numerous work
items and high volume of the list, we're still trying to determine how much
of this he will be able to accomplish. Yakov, would you like to contribute
to this also? If so, let's discuss off-list. If there any others that would
like to contribute to these efforts, please contact me off-list.
Your original email was about trying to understand the direction of the
group. What are the group's thoughts about the three phases that were
defined and how these relate to the work items and active documents? Are
there other ideas that seem to not be within scope or are there things that
should discuss not focusing on?
Yakov
At 07:12 AM 7/8/2003 -0400, Paul Judge wrote:
I think that you hit on it with the understand, propose, and
evaluate
steps. The use of three verbs was quite intentional.
Also, if you look at the ASRG Work Items list
(http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg-work-items.txt), you will notice that
the work items fall under these same three phases.
The understanding phase includes:
1. inventory of problems work
(http://www.irtf.org/asrg/draft-asrg-inventory-of-problems.txt)
2. the analysis and characterization work
The proposal phase includes:
Foundation:
3. requirements document
(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/curre
nt/msg0508
4.htm
l)
4. the taxonomy
(http://www.irtf.org/asrg/draft-asrg-taxonomy-anti-spam-systems.txt)
5. identification of standardization requirements
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techc
onsider-02.txt)
x. consent framework document
(http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framew
ork.html)
Proposals:
6. proposals of new solutions (lots of these; they just need
to be revisited
in relationship with the req's, the evaluation model, and the consent
framework) We probably need to create a template for proposals.
7. best practices documents.
The evaluation phase includes:
8.a. creating an evaluation model
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techc
onsider-02
.txt)
8.c. evaluation of the solutions (it seems to be more
efficient to require
this as part of proposals)
If anyone has opinions about items that should be added to
or removed
from this list, I would love to hear them.
After we receive some feedback here, I will publish a new
list of work
items.
-----Original Message-----
From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 12:08 AM
To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Group Direction
Our group was intended to do the following (from
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/minutes/asrg.htm):
"ASRG was formed to UNDERSTAND the problem and
collectively PROPOSE
and EVALUATE solutions to allow "consent based communication."
However, while we had many discussions on UNDERSTANDING the spam
problem, we have not produced a document or a summary of
our results
on that issue.
But it seems that we are currently on our way towards
PROPOSING AND
EVALUATING solutions by first developing the following tools:
1. Consent framework. 2. Requirements document. 3. Technical
Considerations document.
Using these tools we can then look back at the various
proposals and
start evaluating them. As for UNDERSTANDING the problem
can we hope
to come up
with a document summarizing the problem or is since there
are so many
divergent views, that will not happen?
In general, is there a specific roadmap or direction for
the group?
Perhaps we are seeking to accomplish the following goals:
1. Write up a document summarizing the problem.
2. Write up documents to be used for evaluating proposals.
3. Start evaluating solutions based on the first two steps.
4. Select areas where standards are needed and either develop
them or pass
on the standardization suggestions to the IETF.
Yakov
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg