ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements Document

2003-09-25 16:33:34
Kee Hinckley wrote:
At 8:39 AM -0400 9/25/03, eric(_at_)infobro(_dot_)com wrote:
.........
EDW> This as well was changed in a later draft.  Unfortunately, these
subsequent drafts were being discussed off-list.  The document which I
forward may be a closer fit to the ideals of the list at present.

BTW, more people are needed to work on this, can the volunteers step
forward?


Those two statements are related. I think if you want volunteers you need to keep the discussion on list. It may make things more difficult with side-tracks and interruptions, however it will generate more interest and participation. (How much it will help find people to write things up though, I don't know. Certainly my participation on this list goes in waves, depending on my workload--that's not what you'd want from a document owner.)


You are definatly right! I think that with the subject numbering system SOME form of order is achieved, so there it is easier to follow then it has been before. I will endeveor to keep discussions on-list as much as possible. HOWEVER, as RFC 2014 states certain technical issues that devolve into "rat holes" would have to be decided off-list.

Also you have another fundamental problem. You've backed off to a level of abstraction where agreement is possible--but that also means it's far enough away from the problem that people don't see its relevance.

What would you suggest to remedy this problem?

My personal feeling is that the most valuable thing that could come out of this group is a strong statement of consent, with a particular goal of defeating the U.S. Congress', and DMA's attempt to make opt-out the standard model. We all know that won't work. But a united front from the internet groups behind a common definition of what levels of consent must be required would help. Along with that model, could come a set of BCPs for senders, receivers, spam filters and ISPs. There are other groups working on portions of that (see http://www.isipp.org/standards.html, a document that came out of the Summit I and Summit II conferences that brought major senders and receivers together to talk about email deliverability). I think that ASRG (in it's newer, mellower form) could contribute to that process.

Defining "consent" is a major issue, I will reply to that in a separate posting.



_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg