Subject: [Asrg] 0. ASRG Website updated

From: Paul Judge <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:39:02 -0400

The ASRG website was updated today: http://www.irtf.org/asrg/

Changes include:

1. The updated Work Items/Research Agenda that was distributed on the
mailing list last week. I have not received any feedback on the research
agenda. Do we feel that it is complete?  Also, a number of items on the list
need volunteers. 

2. The requirements document that has been distributed on the mailing list
twice. Again, there has been little feedback on this document.

3. Updated links to a few of the drafts.

4. The ASRG's Interim IPR Policy that has been previously discussed on the
list.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:40:16 -0400

At 06:39 PM 7/14/2003 -0400, Paul Judge wrote:
>...
>....

Would user education go under 7.  Best Practices documents? What about in 
addition to promulgating a set of BCPs, setting up an active organization 
promoting the adoption of BCPs like the Web Standards Project?

Yakov

---

From: Paul Judge <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:42:54 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> 

I think that 7.a. BCP for End-users is 'user education'. It is at least the
creation of the material for educating users. I suppose the second part of
user education is distributing that information. Once we create it and make
it available, I do not know if we need a separate grassroots coalition to
promote it. There are a number of organizations that participate in
anti-spam efforts ranging from CAUCE to SpamCon to the FTC to the Center for
Democracy and Technology. Beyond the participants here and these
organizations, it is not clear what such a new organization would do. Can
you help clarify?

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:52:30 -0400

>organizations, it is not clear what such a new organization would do. Can

I was addressing specifically the distribution part. I was thinking of more 
of a central distribution point for technical BCPs like best anti-spam 
configurations for MTAs, best settings for MUAs, etc. I was thinking more 
of a website where someone can go and select the MTA/MUA he is using, and 
be presented with a list of recommended settings and sample configuration 
files, and instructions how to implement them. I have not seen such 
existing project as of yet.

Yakov

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:46:54 -0400

At 06:39 PM 7/14/2003, Paul Judge wrote:
>.....

In particular 8. Evaluation, do we need to specify that every individual 
proposal needs to address every item listed in the requirements document? 
This has been the approach used by the IMPP WG.

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:54:00 -0400

>agenda. Do we feel that it is complete?  Also, a number of items on the list

In particular - 5. identification of standardization requirements:

Are we referring to possible opportunities for developing protocols here, 
such as the CRI protocol for C/R system interoperability?

Yakov

---

From: Paul Judge <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:11:55 -0400

> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 11:54 PM

> such as the CRI protocol for C/R system interoperability?

This refers to opportunities for developing technical standards. As the
research agenda points to, Crocker's draft documents these opportunities.

---

From: Paul Judge <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:50:46 -0400

> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 11:47 PM

> This has been the approach used by the IMPP WG. 

This would be ideal. First, we have to get a more mature draft of the
requirements document done. Also, proposals should

---

From: Paul Judge <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:59:19 -0400

> To: Paul Judge; [email-masked]'
> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. ASRG Website updated
> 
> 
> >mailing list last week. I have not received any feedback on the 
> >research agenda. Do we feel that it is complete?  Also, a number of 
> >items on the list need volunteers. .....
> 

This would be ideal. First, we have to get a more mature draft of the
requirements document done.(Speaking of which, if any group member would
like to join Eric and Russell in maturing the requirements doc, please email
me.) Also, proposals should include an analysis based on an agreed upon
evaluation framework. The start of such an evaluation framework has been put
together in Crocker's draft. The next step here is to define metrics for
each of the characeristics.

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:33:18 -0400

>research agenda points to, Crocker's draft documents these opportunities.

Two points come to mind. First, do we need to define a formal process by 
which proposed standards can be passed on to the IETF since IRTF RGs cannot 
make standards? Second, would an appendix summarizing a list of standard 
opportunities in the end of Crocker's draft make the document a bit more 
easier to read?

Yakov

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:40:58 -0400

>each of the characeristics.

Should we start a point-by-point discussion of the requirements perhaps? 
And do we need additional documents for the evaluation framework besides 
Crocker's draft?

Yakov