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

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Ned Freed <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >
> > And while I agree that our time is valuable and should not be wasted, I'm
> > not
> > sure I'd go as far as to say that WGs should only ever take on work when
> > the
> > production of a standard at the end is practically guaranteed. Sometimes
> > crippling problems only emerge after close scrutiny. Mind you, email
> > is sufficiently mature and we have sufficient experience with greylisting
> > that such an outcome is unlikely here. But we've been surprised before.
> >

> My concern is more that we've taken on work in which interest has petered
> out leaving us with nearly dead documents.  One way to avoid doing that is
> to favor taking on work that addresses a real pain point for more than just
> a couple of people, and for which we can find people dedicated to seeing
> the work through to completion, and for which there is ample support (e.g.,
> implementations, for something on the standards track).  I believe
> something lacking that kind of support should really be looking at the ISE
> or AD sponsorship rather than APPSAWG.

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.

That said, opinions appear to be mixed about the likely utility of this draft.
But I've said my piece; time for others to weigh in.

				Ned