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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Ned Freed <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > 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.)
>

Sure, it's faintly possible.  But I also think it's ambiguous when there's
not an iota of feedback after a new version is posted even if only to
confirm that all previous raised issues have been addressed.  I think it's
telling if an entire WG can't even be arsed to write two or three words
doing that or expressing any kind of support whatsoever for the progress of
a document.  I certainly don't feel comfortable handing such a thing to the
IESG claiming "this has consensus" in those conditions.

If we have this completely wrong and the ADs want to correct us, fine.  But
this is where my experience with the IETF and other working groups has led
me, and I'll be surprised if the guidance is "If nobody says anything when
you ask if it's ready, the only logical conclusion is that it's ready."  If
instead the WG simply can't be bothered, we send it up and it comes back
with a stack of DISCUSSes, then what?

I am aware of Pete's rants about useless feedback.  I'm sympathetic to the
idea that "+1" is pretty useless on its own, but I don't think a slightly
more detailed reply like "I read the -xx version of this draft, and prior
issues A, B, and C were all addressed.  I think it's ready." is at all
useless.  Absent that, why should I as co-chair or shepherd not conclude
that those issues are possibly still of concern, especially if it's subject
matter with which I'm not familiar?

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.
>

Huh?  I'm not claiming the current set of documents is inappropriate or out
of charter.  I'm saying the absence of review and support comments is a
problem.

The charter lists these bullet points (among others) as criteria for
accepting work:

* Whether there is a core team of WG participants with sufficient energy
and expertise to advance the proposed work item according to the proposed
schedule.

* Whether there are enough WG participants who are willing to review
the work produced by the document authors or editors.

It seems to me that your silence-is-golden notion is at odds with those;
specifically, I interpret silence as the absence of "sufficient energy" and
"willing to review".

-MSK