On 12/2/2015 8:43 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 02/12/15 16:32, Derek J. Balling wrote:
Why isn't this as simple as chartering the WG to go off and:
1.) Document the answers to questions 2 and 3 above, with data
2.) If they so choose after doing #1, propose remedies or changes to the
existing methodologies consistent with the data they found above
(With no hats) That seems eminently sensible to me. I'm sure
the specific text to describe the questions would need a bit
of work, but that oughtn't be too hard.
1. That's an IRTF type of task, not an IETF type of task.
2. As sensible as the task might seem, the IETF pretty much never
requires documentation about expected efficacy. That makes imposition
of such a requirement, here, discriminatory.
The original approach to chartering working groups was rather simpler:
1. Is there clear indication that 'the community' wants to do this,
by virtue of there being folk who want spend time on wg development and
they or other folk making noises about interest in implementing and
2. Is there a clear understanding of potential /danger/ from doing this?
These days, we mostly stop at the first half of Question 1. But we have
pretty much always left the question of 'efficacy' to the market.
ietf-smtp mailing list