[Top] [All Lists]

Re: email-arch -- comments solicited on I8N

2008-03-11 05:28:33

ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:

<ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com> wrote:
given that the only document out of EAI that has made
it to RFC status is an informational overview

The next two EAI Last Calls started yesterday, there can
be four EAI RFCs soon.

And once there are it will take considerable time for the experiment to even
start in a meaningful way, assuming it ever does.  The email architecture
documeent is needed now and shouldn't have to wait for any of this. It can
always be revised later to reflect the extent to which EAI becomes a reality.


There has always been a strong temptation to have the document refer to what should be, could be, or will be (for some definition of "will", given the inability to predict the future successfully.) After all, these would allow casting an improved system, and who doesn't want the system to be better?

But the decision from the start was to have this particular document only specify what is. And believe me, that has been more than enough challenge. Astonishingly, even with this constraint, the effort has required more inventive design than I've ever had to do, at the least suggesting that we (the aggregated email technical and operations community) really haven't had a thorough and shared understanding of the current service.

I've chosen to interpret that fact as demonstrating how important it is to stick with "is".


  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking