--On Sunday, 11 September, 2005 11:30 +0200 Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> wrote:
John C Klensin wrote in <ietf-smtp.imc.org>:
I am somewhat disinclined to get 2821bis-02, or even
2821bis-01, posted before 2822bis-00 appears, so people who
would like to see faster turnover on 2821bis drafts should
be pinging Pete.
Starting 2822bis before the core USEFOR document is ready (or
the USEFOR WG terminated) would be an _excessively_ bad idea.
If the author feels otherwise he's invited to the Message-ID
threads in USEFOR, that would be literally hundreds of articles
from Bruce, Charles, me, and others. NO-WS-CTL and some other
creatures.
...
Frank,
There are normative dependencies between 2821 and 2822, and
there will be similar dependencies between 2821bis and 2822bis.
There are also some syntax productions and other things that
should either match or provide explanations if they do not. The
recent discussion of an additional element in Received fields is
an example: if 2821bis is changed, then either identical changes
need to be made in 2822bis, or the differences need to be
explained, or people are going to get really confused (and, in
my experience, somewhat irritated). So it would be a really
bad idea to try to progress 2821bis significantly without
2822bis on the (same) table.
Beyond that, a few observations about the USEFOR situation,
based in part on a very recent discussion with the individual
who was the responsible Applications Area Director when Henry's
draft was written...
(1) the statements in the USEFOR charter that Henry's document
was "not further pursued" are not quite correct. There was an
active effort in the early 90s to revise and update NNTP, which
was expected to also take up the message format. It fizzled out
and the ADs finally gave up on the WG after some considerable
period of inaction.
(2) At least from my point of view, 822/ 2822/ 2822bis are
normative in this space. USEFOR should welcome an update to
2822 to which it can appropriately conform. YMMD, of course.
(3) Had 2821bis/2822bis been produced on the schedules
anticipated when 2821/2822 and DRUMS concluded, they would have
been done years ago and USEFOR (and other work) would have had
no choice but to conform to, or try to update, those documents.
(4) Over the years, I have gotten significantly less patient
with WGs that are significantly past benchmark deadlines,
especially those that are not explained in Charters. I'm more
patient with ones that are actively producing drafts but
(apparently) haven't been able to converge on schedule than I am
with those that aren't doing anything. Howewer, in terms of
agreeing to dependencies between efforts in a WG and efforts
elsewhere, I have found it useful to assume that a WG that is
more than a year behind schedule will never converge, or at
least never converge on whatever would define the dependency.
That rule is quite harsh, and there are often outcomes more
positive than it would predict, but it is true often enough to
be a useful guideline. Again, YMMD, but you and USEFOR should
probably consider it fortunate that Scott Hollenbeck has
demonstrated, many times, that he is a much more patient and
tolerant person than I am.
regards,
john