That's the general point I was hoping everyone could agree on...if they
don't hold anonymity to be relevant to their proposal, then they should
be able to have their proposal considered with that statement, rather
than be rejected for not being relevant to anonymity =)
Surely. If there's something in our requirements that one doesn't believe
apply to a proposal (whatever it is) it's probably best to make this
explicit from the start. However, it's got to be a 'legitimate' objection
to say that this is wrong and the requirement does / must apply to a
proposal and that the proposer should go away and consider it.
Also, we can argue about the requirement(s) - rather than for or against
some particular proposal. This should save us having to reprise all the
arguments for each proposal.
In this case, do we believe that anonymity is:
(a) a property of the current MTS
(b) desirable
(c) worth providing for at some cost in anti-spam effectiveness
(or accountability)
Is there a broad consensus on this? Do we need a consensus on this?
Me, I'm not sure about 'a'.
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg