[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: WG Review: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service environments (lemonade)



--On Wednesday, 29 January, 2003 13:06 -0800 "ned.freed@mrochek.com" <ned.freed@mrochek.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