the co-chairs think this is a useful thread; in fact, we're going to
place the following plan in front of the working group:
it is clear to the co-chairs that the "tipping point" with respect to
the working group's deliberations revolve around the sufficiency of the
SPF syntax to address near-term concerns. if the syntax is adequate, it
is hard to argue for an alternative or future syntax; if the syntax is
inadequate, then the SPF syntax is of transitory use.
in order to drive consensus on this issue, the chairs put forth this
plan:
between now and sunday, june 20, 2004 23:59:59 us/pacific time, ALL
replies to this message must give examples of scenarios for which the
SPF syntax is insufficient. any requests for clarifications MUST be
sent directly to the authors of a scenario, who may then post a
clarification in reply to their own email.
starting monday, june 21, 2004 00:00:00 us/pacific time, the working
group may reply to any of these scenario messages for the purpose of
explaining how the SPF syntax is sufficient.
on thursday, june 24, 2004 23:59:59 us/pacific time, the chairs will
gauge the group's consensus on the issue of the sufficiency of the SPF
syntax.
based on the chair's reading, the working group will be presented with
a plan for moving forward within the timeframe allotted by the charter.
so, to re-cap:
1. now until sunday evening: people post difficult examples
2. monday until thursday evening: people post explanations on dealing
with the difficulty
3. friday: chairs announce plan for moving forward.
/mtr