> Not meaning to presume on the role of the chairs...
> It would probably be useful if those who haven't taken the trouble to read
> the charter of this group - did so.
>
> http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html
I have. The charter simply notes the problem defining spam and punts on the
problem.
As far as charters go, the asrg charter looked pretty good to me when I
first read it. It still does. Having written a few charters before, I
think it sets the framework well for the work that is underway.
> It might also be instructive to check out the archives of this list.
> Here's a good one:
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg07341.html
>
>
> Spam definitions? No thanks. We have a "consent-based communication" model.
> Spam is the other stuff :-)
Fair enough. Established order has spoken and dissension is unwelcome. The
message is clear, and I will act accordingly.
A group that revises its charter frequently is taking a random
walk. Unless there is something wrong with the direction of the group, I
think asrg should deliver some of the work that is described on its charter
before opening discussions on changing it. That is what we did in the
Secure Multicast Research Group when it became clear to most of us that the
charter was too narrow. We delivered secure multicast technology to the
IETF and then re-chartered the secure multicast RG to become the group
security RG.
Mark
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg