Very nice. I say to post an Internet Draft - you post a link to a simple
archived e-mail. The IETF process starts with an Internet Draft - without it
we are all just wasting time. An internet draft is a concrete proposal that
can be discussed, archived, debated successfully, etc.
I challenge you to take your e-mail posting and turn it into an Internet Draft
with a legitimate security section (since you are solving a security problem)
then post a single message to this list showing the internet draft, and a
mailing list that people can join if they are interested in discussing it
further.
From there it is easy to determine if there is enough interest in forming a BOF
in Minnesota ( or S. Korea in March ) to forward the work in a Working Group.
The problem you have run into is you haven't taken the first step, which is to
simply submit an Internet Draft to the Internet Drafts editor... very simple
process with no politics in the way. From there you can pursue forming a
Working Group (where you will get your first taste of politics). Being that
you haven't taken the first step (publishing an Internet Draft) I am not sure
you "really" meet the charter (Ok, yes you do, but putting out a draft is SO
important - it should be the first step) and you have allowed the topic to grow
WAY beyond initial discussions (I am actually waiting for Harold to post one
of his famous Top n Talker lists soon). The next step is to get a mailing
list somewhere and move the discussion off of this list onto that list
Bill
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 05:10:06AM +0800, Shelby Moore wrote:
Why is this even difficult. I have yet to see a firm proposal (ie. an
Internet Draft),...
My challenge - Go forth - publish your protocol in ID form...
1. I remind you to read my initial post that started this thread:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg22035.html
"Request for opinions on whether to creating a working group or publish the
following idea as an internet draft?"
I think that qualifes under "initial discussion" of the charter of this list
(see #2 below).
2. And to read the charter for this mailing list:
http://www.ietf.org/maillist.html
"This list is meant for initial discussion only. Discussions that fall within
the area of any working group or well established list should be moved to
such more specific forum..."
3. Just a fews posts back in this thread, it was suggested that IRTF would be
a better forum for anti-spam proposals and discussions, and I agreed (to
consider it if possible and applicable).
However there is a another line of discussion in this thread pertaining to
general information theory and modeling of channels which is still winding
down ("initial discussion") and seems quite general to internet engineering.
4. The basic difficulty has been those violating the charter of the list:
http://www.ietf.org/maillist.html
"Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject." such as the
"Kook" thread offshoot that someone started.
Shelby Moore
http://AntiViotic.com