I have a suggestion. There are a few ways we could go about resolving this.
1. Agree
2. Agree to disagree
3. Agree to remain vague and/or suspend judgement
I think I missed some earlier context, due to arriving late to this list
and due to not being part of ASRG before this. Thankfully, Yakov pointed
me at this document, which has helped:
Lightweight MTA Authentication Protocol (LMAP) Discussion and Comparison
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-00.txt
I think this is the closest thing we have to a FAQ for our group (well, and
the charter, but that doesn't list implications etc.)
So. Here is a suggestion. Dave, your assertion is approximately that
"on-going maintenance costs haven't been acknowledged; e.g. the effect on
various kinds of mobility." Could you pull up the
draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-00 document and see if it addresses the
points you feel you have made, that haven't been acknowledged? If so,
that's great, we can point people at this document and move on. If not,
perhaps the best way to proceed would be to collect your points that should
be discussed and put them all in one place (and possibly to add to the lmap
discussion document.) That will make the information available widely, and
will give you the positive feedback that your points are being acknowledged.
Since we don't (and cannot) know all the costs, I think the best we can do
is try to ferret them out as much as we can. Here's a first attempt at
some "agree to be vague" language:
There are costs to be borne with any LMAP deployment. We know what many of
these costs are, but until we get to the stage where one or two large
installations complete a rollout, we won't know ALL costs exactly. There
may be unexpected barriers that are expensive, or even insurmountable, or
there may be cheap solutions that work well; we don't know yet.
This makes adoption a bit risky. But, I think there are people out there
willing to take the risk, especially if we are offering something with a
long-term payout and short-term risk of costs. I think it's safe to say it
still *has* an ROI, even if we don't know exactly when that is.
Therefore, we all agree to move forward and try to create the best proposal
possible based on what we know and what we believe. We will make a "best
effort" to uncover and disclose costs (not in dollars, but in
category/type) so that anyone adopting the new standard can make an
informed decision. And, we will give interested parties an opportunity to
comment, and adjust course as needed.
<<<
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>