Re: email-arch intro

Pete Resnick wrote:
> In among all of the other balls I have been juggling (or dropping 
> depending on your view of it), I've definitely let this one get far too 
> close to the ground. 

Folks,

Alexey is including email-arch in the next IESG telechat.  Unfortunately, this 
means that he needs me to submit a revised, post-last call version by tomorrow, 
Friday.  So we have only today to discuss the text that Pete has circulated. 
Fortunately, the text is non-normative.
Also fortunately, I think the draft that Pete circulated does its job pretty 
well.  I think the IETF really does not have all that much experience producing 
architecture documents and explaining their role in relation to the service they 
describe or the protocols they engender.  So as a community, we do not have a 
lot of shared perspective or language for this sort of exercise.
That said, I think that the text does serve to help the reader understand the 
place that this sort of document should occupy amongst a set of technical 
specifications -- both the uses and the limits.
Given the time limit, I'll ask folk to draw a very sharp distinction between 
major objections -- problems with the text that are so serious the text MUST NOT 
be used in its current form -- versus minor ones -- tweaks that could make it 
better.
For major objections, please make very clear why you think disaster will befall 
the Internet if we use the text.  (Of course, suggestions for remedying this are 
solicited.)
For minor concerns, please also mark them clearly, and do send them -- feel free 
to send them to me privately, to keep the mailing list channel more open.  I'll 
fold suggestions in as best I can.  (The IETF Last Call, including impressively 
careful additional GenArts and SecDir reviews already produced a number of such 
fixes.)
Thanks!

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net