Subject: Re: SMTP WG Last-Call

From: "Nick Shelness/SSW/Lotus" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:20:29 +0100

Dave,

You wrote:-

> I agree with Dan's objections. I've been here nearly two years and I
> don't recall seeing clear consensus against any of them.

If you had been around for longer (sadly much longer given the age of the 
drums wg), you would know that RFC 821, RFC 822, and RFC 1123 form the 
drums base line. To make a change to this base line in 821bis or b22bis 
requires rough consensus of the working group. In the case of Dan's 
points, they all involve changes to the base line, so even where others 
agree with him, without rough consensus (and none has been seen) it is not 
possible for the proposed changes to be made. It doesn't involve Dan, but 
the most striking example of this principle was RFC 822bis' retention of 
RFC 822's problematic Reply-to: text. Everyone agreed it was broken. We 
just couldn't reach consensus on how to fix it. 

Finally, I and made others in the working group abhor personal attacks on 
the integrity of our colleagues. I for one now stop reading whenever I 
encounter such an attack and I am not alone. I would, therefore, posit 
that it is impossible to reach rough consensus on any proposal that 
includes such an attack. Not enough people will have read it. Over the 
years a whole number of us have tried to help Dan clean up his act. Each 
time we have only had the attacks re-directed at us. Its a serious 
problem, and one for which I perceive no solution.

Nick

Nick Shelness, IBM Fellow
Chief Technology Officer
Lotus Development Corp
Tel: (617) 693-7484

Assistant: Mary McGurran
Tel: (617) 693-4321

---

From: Dave Sill <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:02:53 -0400 (EDT)

"Nick Shelness/SSW/Lotus" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>...To make a change to this base line in 821bis or b22bis 
>possible for the proposed changes to be made.

What is the measure of rough consensus? Some fixed number of positive
responses? A certain ratio of positives to negatives?

>encounter such an attack and I am not alone.

I don't like them, either, but "retaliating" by refusing to consider
the objections on their merits is, I think, counterproductive.
Dismissing them without consideration only strengthens the attacker's
claims that their objections aren't being taking into consideration.
And, of course, the goal of producing the best documents/standards can
only be achieved by evaluating all input objectively.

Thanks for your response, Nick.

-Dave

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:07:25 -0700

>the objections on their merits is, I think, counterproductive.

Not relative to the amount of time wasted on having the same 
arguments brought up over and over. The personal attacks usually 
ensue after Dan brings up an objection and doesn't get the level of 
agreement he wants. It's not "retaliating"; it is simply not wasting 
time.

>claims that their objections aren't being taking into consideration.

We have no obligation to deal with anyone's personality traits in 
this WG. Dan is certainly not the only one here who has, um, ah, a 
strongly-opinionated stance to almost everything about 821/822. He 
is, however, the one who most visibly has no ability to move on when 
in the minority.

>only be achieved by evaluating all input objectively.

s/input/initial input/

Incessantly repeating arguments that have long ago been resolved does 
not help achieve the goal. Documenting them in an informational RFC 
would probably help, but I sincerely doubt that Dan wants to (given 
his past unhappiness with the RFC system) or is able to (given that 
such an RFC would require the editor to listen to and include the 
editorial comments of others). Such an Informational RFC would be a 
great project for an SMTP developer who is open-minded and wants to 
promote interoperability among current systems and to help future 
SMTP developers get it right.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Jul 2000 19:18:54 -0000

Nick Shelness/SSW/Lotus writes:
> In the case of Dan's points, they all involve changes to the base line,

That's not even close to being true. Most of my objections are to text
added by Klensin. Some of my objections are to text that looks the same
but where Klensin has changed some crucial definitions.

---Dan

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Jul 2000 06:39:00 -0000

Paul Hoffman / IMC writes:
> help future SMTP developers get it right.

http://cr.yp.to/smtp.html
http://cr.yp.to/immhf.html
http://cr.yp.to/im.html

These pages cover every interoperability issue I've seen. The IETF
specifications, unfortunately, don't even come close.

> Incessantly repeating arguments that have long ago been resolved

Which ones are you talking about? When, exactly, were they resolved?
Please be specific.

One issue has certainly been resolved: the wait-for-QUIT-response issue.
The group decided against Klensin's change in August 1998. The reason I
keep bringing this up is that Klensin _still_ hasn't fixed his document.

Part of the VRFY issue has also been resolved: ten people have objected
to Klensin's change. Obviously that change has to be undone. But we'd
also like 821bis to say clearly that SMTP servers need not support
informative responses to VRFY requests. This is the overwhelming
majority view among implementors, and probably among DRUMS participants,
but Newman hasn't allowed it to be discussed at a meeting.

---Dan