Subject: Procedures for Moving Forward

From: DRUMS WG Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:35:22 -0700

Since 23 individuals have responded to the WG last call on draft 12 of the 
SMTP document, it is clear we lack WG rough concensus.

This WG is way late, and both John and I are busy people.  It is clear that 
I have done a poor job of tracking issues recently, and I don't have the 
time to maintain a quality web page on issues the way I used to.  So I'm 
going to introduce some new procedural rules designed to help track issues 
and speed up progress.  Unless you really want this working group to 
continue for a few more years, follow these rules:

(1) Do not post to this list unless one of the following criteria is met:

(1a) You are raising a single issue of concern with SMTP draft 12, include 
specific text for a proposed change, and use a new subject line descriptive 
of the issue.

(1b) You are expressing support for a post of type (1a), and preserve the 
subject line (with Re: prefix).

(1c) The WG Chair has explicitly declared an issue open for debate, and you 
preserve the subject line (with Re: prefix).

(1d) The WG Chair reserves the right to post procedural comments at any 
time.  If you have issue with WG Chair procedures, send email to the WG 
chair privately.

(2) The WG Chair will not declare any issue open unless 4 people express 
support for it.

(3) Posts which reference individuals in any way that could be construed as 
impolite will be ignored.  (As WG Chair, I will point out new issue posts 
which meet this criteria as time permits).

(4) Posts which raise multiple issues will be ignored.  (As WG Chair, I 
will point out new issue posts which meet this criteria as time permits).

(5) Non-technical issues are out of scope because we are running too late. 
You may send minor editoral comments directly to the document editor, and 
the document editor will apply them at his discretion.

		- DRUMS WG Chair

---

From: DRUMS WG Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:45:33 -0700

--On Wednesday, July 26, 2000 17:35 -0700 DRUMS WG Chair 
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> (1a) You are raising a single issue of concern with SMTP draft 12,
> include specific text for a proposed change, and use a new subject line
> descriptive of the issue.
>
> (1c) The WG Chair has explicitly declared an issue open for debate, and
> you preserve the subject line (with Re: prefix).
>

Posts which violate these rules (I count three so far) will result in a 
private warning from the Chair and will otherwise be ignored.

		- DRUMS WG Chair

---

From: "Bart Schaefer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:52:48 -0700

Keith's new text for section 2.3 makes it clear that implementations that
do not follow SHOULD requirements are only partially conforming.

Section 2.3 further states that MAY indicates cases where interoperability
is not harmed by a given behavior.

The text in 2.2.1 makes EHLO a SHOULD requirement.

The text in 3.2 says clients MAY use HELO.

The justification in X.1.9(iv) indicates that 3.2 permits HELO clients
to be considered fully conforming.  This does not follow from a literal
interpretation of the above-noted three sections, either in draft 12 or
as reworded by Keith.

Suggested change:  Expand the definition of MAY in 2.3 as follows:

> Statements using "MAY" describe features or styles of doing things
> that may be followed, or not, at the discretion of the implementation,
> normally without causing significant interoperability problems.  Such
> statements reflect a relaxation of the conformance requirements for
> "SHOULD": in any instance of conflict, an implementation exercising
> discretion as explicitly permitted by "MAY" is still considered fully
> conforming.

This suggested change appears to reflect the spirit in which "MAY" has
been employed, at least in this instance.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:15:56 -0400

I'd be fine with Bart's proposed change to the MAY language.

-Keith

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Jul 2000 23:18:28 -0000

There are many problems with Newman's procedures. For example:

   * Newman condones unauthorized changes by the document editor.

   * Newman fails to recognize previously stated objections and previous
     suggestions of revisions to the text. Those of us who disagree with
     the document editor have been forced to speak up again and again
     and again.

   * Newman prohibits messages discussing more than one issue. There's
     no harm in trying---I tried this after smtpupd-09---but sometimes
     two issues really should be discussed together.

   * Newman has a ridiculously broad prohibition on messages ``that
     could be construed as impolite.'' This is selectively enforced
     against messages whose content Newman doesn't like.

   * Newman prohibits everything other than objections to smtpupd. In
     particular, procedural objections such as this one aren't allowed.

We'd be done a hell of a lot faster if we simply settled the issues,
rather than spending all this time on bogus meta-discussions.

---Dan