Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap) - reducing configuration complexity

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 2/7/2017 5:47 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 1:54 PM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> TL;DR summary: Just say 'no'.
>
> No hats, personal opinion only, and in response to several of the
> messages in this thread, not directly to John.
>
>
> Will it ever be possible for new work to be proposed at the IETF
> without drowning out a chorus of nitpickers?  You may not want to
> help standardize it.  You may not want to implement it.  You may not
> want to deploy it.  You may not want to use it.

Joe,

Sorry, no.

Basic questions about basic utility are not nitpicking.  Basic questions 
about the justifications for basic technical choices are not nitpicking.

And authorizing an IETF working group is not free.  Even the most modest 
IETF working group standards effort had an aggregate cost of around 
US$1M, back when I did a calculation more than 20 years ago, and I would 
love to see someone formulate a claim that it has gone down since then...

So here's an entirely un-novel suggestion:  get the organizations who 
are expecting to implement and deploy this to say so.  From that we can 
get a measure of likely uptake.  Get them also to explain what benefits 
they expect to accrue from this work.

Standards work cannot be a random walk through arbitrary features, no 
matter how intuitively appealing those features might be  There needs to 
be clear and legitimate justifications for each effort and a clear 
indication that there is a market out there wanting the work.

A mild sense that something is benign is not nearly good enough.  Given 
the actual costs of such work.


> This work won't hurt the Internet, particularly if done with

A statement like that ignores issues such as opportunity costs.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net