On 11/10/08 10:37 PM, John Levine wrote:
I hope the charter, unlike the previous one, will require the
development of a protocol for communicating email sender reputation
that can be implemented in email products without known patent
encumbrances that are incompatible with open source software. Email
is simply too important to allow otherwise.
Not to belabor the totally painfully obvious, but DNSBLs are a
protocol for communicating email sender reputation that are
implemented in open source software without patent encumbrances and
have been for a deacade.
What would be the point of yet another WG to reinvent this wheel?
I tend to agree. Here are a few questions for the IESG when considering
this matter:
1. Would declining to publish as a standard harm or hurt the
community? Would refusing to publish as a standard stop implementations
or merely create potential interoperability issues that could lead to
more legitimate messages being dropped?
2. Does the IESG perceive that the creation of a working group would
substantially change the content of the document in question? Put
another way, what would a working group consider doing differently?
3. Would publishing on some other track serve a legitimate purpose,
other than to duck the above two issues?
If the answer to the last question is "no", then I ask that the IESG
properly address the first two.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf