Jonathan Morton wrote:
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.
>
I have to concur with this. Even though it's reasonable to assume most
list members are technical folk, that does not imply in the slightest
that they have experience or even interest in "formal methods". I paid
enough attention in Formal Methods lectures to pass the exam, but I
wouldn't feel at all comfortable working under such a thing, let alone
defining one.
Well guys, as much as we may hate doing everything formally, sometimes
we have to. We are definatly open to any suggestions as to how to make
this process a bit easier, but I don't think we can get away from doing
this :) We need some document or model to evaluate proposals, and the
requirements document is one way of doing it. If you can think of other
ways, please let us know.
With regard to the Requirements and Technical Considerations documents,
it could simply be that most of the non-comments are because readers
don't see anything wrong with the documents as they stand.
Well the requirements document is missing definitions, especially one
for "consent". There are some other strong issues, such as whether to
replace SMTP.
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.
Agreed.
I will be starting a separate thread of defining consent where we can
start on this.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg