--On Wednesday, 29 January, 2003 13:06 -0800
"ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com" <ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com> wrote:
I agree. And unfortunately, I think this is due to a serious
problem about which I'm quite distressed:
The proposed charter contained in the announcement is *not*
the proposed charter worked out on the LEMONADE BOF mailing
list. Not even close. The one on the list went through
several revisions to include specific language in the work
items about profiling of existing protocols, and that
language has been removed in what was posted here. The one on
the list was tailored specifically to avoid having the
working group add to existing protocols (with IMAP as only
one example) unless absolutely necessary, but rather to
profile existing protocols if that solved the problem. The
present charter gives the incorrect impression that the
desire of the group is simply to add extensions, specifically
to IMAP.
Well, as it happens the charter that was posted to
ietf-announce wasn't the one the IESG approved either. It is
one from quite a few versions back.
I've attached the current charter below.
Ned, this one is _lots_ better. I'll leave sorting out how the
wrong version got posted to the IESG and the Secretariat. But
my primary concern (and one of those on which Pete and I are
apparently in agreement) remains: when I read "enhance...IMAP",
I don't infer "narrow the protocol for use in this environment"
or "specify a way to use the existing protocol to accomodate
these needs". Instead, I infer "new feature", "new capability",
and "putting more stuff into the protocol". I think there is
considerable resistance in the community to making IMAP bigger
-- while the four messages that have shown up on the list are
not much of a sample, I observe that at least three of them have
included "make it smaller, not larger" positions.
If the community believes all that has been said in Atlanta and
on the "problem-statement" list about raising architectural
issues early in the life of a WG rather than hitting the WG
during Last Call (and you can be assured that several of us will
scream loudly if this WG emits large extensions to IMAP without
really clear justification), then charter-time is the time to
fix this one. If the intent that all of us have is the same
--which I suspect to be the case-- then all that is needed is to
fix text to make that intent clear to the community and to WG
members who have not participated in the previous discussions.
That should be helpful for the Chair(s), for the ADs and for the
community.
First, a process point: If these significant changes were
made by the IESG to what was submitted, these should have
been brought back to the list for approval.
I regard this as being up to the chair of the group. The
charter that wasn't posted was iterated on by both the chairs
and the IESG.
Then this is an objection to the textual form of the charter
version you posted as well as to the form the Secretariat
posted. If the "extend IMAP" issues are settled, then let's get
that fact documented in the charter to prevent later surprises
and unpleasantness. If they are not, then let's either
* Hold a review of those issues by some body whose
responsibility is to the Internet, and Internet mail,
infrastructure is taken broadly, not just accomodating a
few new capabilities. Have that review before the WG is
initiated, and make its conclusions binding on the WG.
* Provide, in the charter, a community review point at
the initiation of significant extension work on IMAP or
anything else(were such work to be initiated), so that
we don't get a pushback situation well into the 11th
hour.
regards,
john