Philip Miller wrote:
Alan DeKok wrote:
Philip Miller <millenix(_at_)zemos(_dot_)net> wrote:
The LMAP discussion document needs cohesive review and editing,
preferably before we publish as and Internet Draft. IDs are nice for
some things, but it's easier if we make all of the changes we feel
necessary before first official publication.
Patches?
I've got a number of messages saved in a folder, and am planning to
update the document again before the end of the year.
Well, here's one more. I'm not sure what to do about the organization,
and I don't know how or where we would address the relevance of SMTP AUTH.
About the organization:
I don't think we should have 2 complete sections dedicated to
addressing, point by point, the specific requirements dreamt up by this
group. They should certainly all be addressed within the body of this
document, or in the protocol description. Basically, I think the best
way to address the myriad concerns is to integrate them in the
rationales for normative sections. I don't think we should end up with 2
separate documents when we're done, one describing the protocol(s) and
one defending it. This is not the norm from what I've seen in the RFCs,
assuming we intend to eventually publish this as an RFC. If there is a
precedent, point me to it and I'll stand corrected, but most things seem
to be completely integrated.
As a research group we are expected to concentrate on discussing the
proposal itself, and leave the implementation to the IETF. Also,
responding to requirements point by point has been an approach taken by
some of the other RGs and WGs.
Yakov
-------
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"All that is gold does not glitter" (LOTR)
-------
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg