I have to agree with Paul that it is simple too early to try to boil this frog.
We have not yet seen much melding of ideas, or have any sense that the whole
issue space has been seen here.
I have no idea how anyone might take this bunch of stuff and make workable
plans out of its mass.
My preference is always to find the Meta Problems and meta issues and put them
at the beginning of the agenda to raise participants vision up to the critical
meta issues that need to be resolved.
Can we even try yet to tag some meta issues and set them on a shelf for future
attention while we continue to rummage about looking got me?
In due course, the shelf full of tagged meta issues needs to be reviewed and
researched but not necessarily before putting them on the shelf.
As noted by someone in history -- "We Have Not Yet Begun to Fight!"
In our case, we have not yet found the boundaries of the field of endeavor.
Cheers...\Stef
At 9:47 -0800 2/1/04, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
At 6:26 PM +0800 2/1/04, James Seng wrote:
So lets go back to IETF tradition. We need someone to write an i-d with all
the concerns and requirements, and then make our discussion around that.
No, let's not.
Making an I-D would resolve the IP issues, particularly copyright
consideration.
I am not a lawyer, and neither are you. Having said that, I cannot imagine how
the above is true. IP issues usually fall into four categories: patents,
copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. A message on a mailing list saying
that a particular idea is good is sufficient as prior art for patents, at
least in the US. You cannot copyright ideas anywhere in the world that is a
signatory to the Berne Convention. It is too early for us to trademark
anything, and there are no trade secrets yet.
This is *not* an IETF project. It is an independent group, at least for now.
To date, the IETF method of creating requirements documents has often failed
badly. (For those who were not involved with IDNS, James knows this very
well from personal experience!)
Yes, IDN requirements was withdraw and was not published eventually. But the
process of capturing the requirements helps to align a lot of discussion, of
those within scope and those not.
And, as I said earlier, it is *way* too early for us to scope this. If you
want to start being narrow, you are obviously free to; I think that is unwise
for something as important as next-generation mail.
It is a useful process so long the author(s) dont get too attached to it and
wants to make it into an RFC later.
...which happens almost all the time.
That's great, and it's *not* an Internet Draft. I would really prefer to see
things like this than Internet Drafts, at least for many months.
Okay, lets keep it this way then if others has no objections.
Um, I wasn't suggesting that your wiki was the only way. I expect that many
folks will create their own discussion areas, write their own evolving lists
of requirements, and so on. From the discussion so far, it is clear that all
of those will not overlap. This is a Good Thing for the beginning phases.
At 1:11 PM +0200 2/1/04, Jari Arkko wrote:
I'm not much of a believer in requirements drafts at the IETF. We
often seem to be lost in the details of long wish lists and miss
the point.
That is my experience as well.
However, structured and well-thought out docouments are going to
be needed if we hope to succeed in this process.
The question is when to even start the document. "Two days after the
discussion has started" may not be an appropriate time.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium