Re: [apps-discuss] draft-santos-smtpgrey-02: SMTP Service Extension for Greylisting Operations

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Ned Freed <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > I think we may have somewhat different standards for what constitutes
> > sufficient interest. I checked and there appear to be six active documents
> > at
> > present, and every one of them has been at least 5 times since it was
> > initially
> > posted. (Yes, there's a -00 and a -01 in the mix, but this fails to count
> > the
> > versions that came out before the document was adopted by the WG. I
> > categorically reject the notion that attention paid prior to WG adoption,
> > possibly on some other list, doesn't count.) As far as I'm concerned these
> > numbers make a prima facie case for sufficient interest.

> Those aren't the only metrics in play here.

> Attention on other lists is wonderful, but a WGLC that draws not even a
> simple "Looks good, let's go" from a single person on any list doesn't
> exactly make us feel comfortable with the notion that it's ready to go to
> the IESG or that we could demonstrate WG consensus behind the current
> content if asked.

Sorry, I don't buy this _at_ _all_. If a document has seen extensive discussion
somewhere else, isn't it just faintly possible that it's in good shape and
people don't see the need for further commentary? (Mind you, I'm not saying
that this applies to the entire current crop of documents. I'm talking about
general criteria here.)

IETF management also appears to be more than a little confused about what's
needed or wanted here. It wasn't too long ago that Pete Resnick got all hot and
bothered about "empty expressions of support" on this very list - from me in
particular - even going so far as to say that he simply ignores such things and
at least implying that he expects others to do so as well. Yet that's exactly
what you're asking people to provide here.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I was told that such things would be ignored
I basically stopped posting all straightforward expressions of support of
drafts nearing or during last call. So if you were expecting me to post a
"seems OK" comment about, say, draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes - and yes, I
have read it carefully and have nothing further to say about it - sorry, that
wasn't about to happen.

> There could be fifty versions that demonstrate ample
> past work and interest on this or some other list, but that doesn't
> automatically imply this WG (the one processing it, after all) is happy
> with it in its current form.

I'd buy this argument with most WGs, which are chartered for a specific
purpose and goal. In such contexts it's important that all of the drafts
that receive WG blessing have a certain degree of self-consistency.

But this is the Apps Area WG, which is chartered to process stuff that doesn't
quite fit anywhere else and which doesn't merit a WG of its own. And sure
enough, if we look at the current set of active drafts, we have one on URI
design principles, one on XML media types, one defining an XML patch format,
one defining a JSON patch format, one defining the form data format, and one
defining a Sieve extension. And soon to be a draft about MX record handling and
perhaps one on greylisting.

If there's a theme there other than "random apps stuff" I'm not seeing it. I
therefore see the notion that there's a common WG understanding acting as a
gating factor for inchoate collection as nothing short of absurd.

> This is especially true if there's current
> unanswered feedback from someone posted to the list, or if an author said
> "You're right, I'll put that in the next version" but that hasn't
> appeared.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? A document that's 
"waiting for revision" is obviously not ready to go. And incidentally,
has clearly seen some review by the WG...

> Of course, this begs the question of how those documents became
> WG items in the first place, an issue we aim to address with the current
> "mini-charter" experiment.

> Anything short of requiring some or all of the above, and we're essentially
> just an abject end-run around AD sponsorship, which seems utterly bogus to
> me.

Sorry, this sort of stuff never really resonated with me when I was an AD, and
it means absolutely nothing to me now. All I care about is getting work done;
just provide me with a reasonable and consistent process and a little guidance
for how to operate it and I could not care less about the details. Tell me to
use a special WG and that's what I'll do, tell me to spin up a mini-WG, that's
fine too, tell me I need to seek AD sponsorship, then that's what I'll ask for.

> So: Are we wrong to have such criteria?

Given the situation as it stands, yes, you absolutely are.

More generally, IETF management has provided what are effectively contradictory
guidelines for what's expected from participants, and is now reaping what it
sowed. My sympathy level is low.

				Ned