[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was address maximum length

2019-11-25 22:41:29
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019, at 15:30, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 11/25/2019 7:37 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
I think there's a set of three questions which are raised by this 

These are good process questions to end with but not necessarily good 
technical ones to start with.

I semi-agree with you. You clipped out my three questions, but I do agree that 
you have raised a question (0) which I did not address. The question zero is:

*0. Are there known deficiencies with the current documents which could be 
addressed by revising them.*

If the answer to that is NO then obviously the others don't matter.

The rest of your email raises the very sensible ordering question:

If the start is in developing a list of technical changes that are 
reasonable, with some assessment of their relative importance and difficulty 
-- and maybe even charting out the details of their solutions -- the sense of 
community pressure for the work will tend to dictate the process answers. 

That is, focus on the substance first, then work out a way to pursue it.

I guess either way the question here is "should we charter a working group to 
develop this list of technical challenges with a charter which allows it to 
revise the existing documents if that's the result it comes to, or should we do 
that work somewhere else and only charter a working group if the work leads us 

And I guess the answer to that is going to be another question "how much of 
this list of technical changes work has already been done either offlist or in 
somebody's head, and is just waiting for a place to be delivered"!

I legitimately don't know the answer to that last question. But you've hit the 
nail on the head when it comes to assessing the ripeness of this work. Once we 
have a clear idea of the scope, that will indicate whether complete document 
revision is the wisest path forwards.



 Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd

ietf-smtp mailing list