Jon Kyme wrote:
It seems to us that there is no further research possible within the
scope of ASRG for this draft, considering its narrow focus. As it stands
now, the proper forum for this discussion would probably be the IETF.
Therefore, what we would suggest, is to submit the draft to the IETF as
a independent submission and then shift the discussion there. The proper
forum for this discussion would either be the main IETF mailing list (as
a starting point), or the ietf-822 mailing list
(http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/index.html). If the IETF sends it back to
us, then we can continue discussing it here.
Surely Eric can submit it *independently* whenever he likes? He doesn't
need you to tell him to. Are you trying to say that further discussion by
the group won't be appreciated - that there's no way such a proposal would
get group support? Or perhaps support by the chairs is the issue, in that
support for labelling is seen as support for a particular law?
This draft addresses a very specific requirement. The goal of the group
is to do research in different areas and present findings. This specific
draft does not require research since the guidelines for it have already
been defined, and especially considering that the law concentrates on
subject labeling specifically, which does not have too many options.
Additionally, the goal of the draft is to be a response of the IETF on
the issue. The formal body that is allowed to make such response would
either be the IAB, the IESG or the IETF chair, not the IRTF. Therefore,
it seems to us that this belongs on the IETF side, since this would be a
policy issue that needs to be defined by them. We do not want to
pre-empt their responsibilites, however if they choose to send it back
to us, we'll be happy to look at it.
Maybe I've got this wrong, and I'm eager to be corrected - surely the
output of this group is going to be (in part) IDs recommended to the IETF
by the group.
Yes it is, but see my comments above. The IRTF's goal is to do research,
anything that would be standards making or policy issues for the IETF,
would go to the IETF.
How about if references to any particular "law", were removed? Would it
then be suitable matter for evaluation here and eventual recommendation to
the IETF by this group?
And if not, why not?
I'd be grateful if the chairs could take the trouble to respond to this.
It can be a suitable matter for evaluation if effectiveness can be
shown. If the only way these schemes are effective is via law
enforcement, that would not be a research topic for the ASRG unless we
are asked to do so by another body: either the IETF or the FTC.
Yakov
-------
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"And this too shall come to pass"
-------
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg