ietf-mta-filters
[Top] [All Lists]

Re : Minneapolis IETF and Sieve - BOF or what?

1999-01-14 09:11:57
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 18:40:02 -0500 Matthew Wall <wall(_at_)cyrusoft(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

So I'd basically propose, and seek discussion and response from the list,
that we have three options:

(1) schedule a second BOF for Minneapolis. 

My theory is that this will provide another opportunity for an open-door
meeting, but we'll have implementation experience at that point. If a
second BOF isn't sufficient to complete the bulk of work by that point,
then that suggests we might actually need formal WG status after all. So at
the end of the meeting in Minneapolis, we'd have three possible outcomes: 

 (a) set a timetable to submit the Sieve draft to the IESG as a Proposed
Standard, 

 (b) agree to a charter for a WG, or 

 (c) defer and/or abandon the work in place.

A notable difference between this BOF and the last is that there are a
number of working implementations out there. This is the best possible 
indicator that we have something that is workable.   Many people are using
this preferentially over older mechanisms such as procmail.

Then I would:

1.  Have the BOF.    Shoot for (d).   Failing that, go for (b).

If we can't get it to proposed immediately, then at least let's get a WG 
going with an aggressive charter that prevents the non-implementing 
bastard tire kickers from their fascist perversion of the process :-)

(2) defer another BOF, reserving Washington in November (+six months) as a
potential meeting time.

This would have the advantage of being 8 months in the future instead of
two, so presumably more work would have been done by then, and it may turn
out the meeting isn't at all necessary after all0.

We need to get this thing on the standards track yesterday.    I would not
vote for a deferral.   


---  
Steve Hole                           
Execmail Inc.
Mailto:Steve(_dot_)Hole(_at_)execmail(_dot_)com 
Phone:403-424-4922



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>