Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Must Address Issue of Hijacked Compu ters

From: Paul Judge <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:14:44 -0400

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

> 
> ---------snip-----------
> 2.10 Single Solution
> 
>   The proposal SHOULD provide a comprehensive solution that
>   impacts the greatest number of problems caused by [spam], and
>   usable or accessible by the greatest number of MTS users.
> ---------snip-----------
> 
> There are many "partial" proposals that appear which can be 
> combined to 
> produce something effective. However, how will we deal with 
> such "partial" 
> solutions? Is the requirements document addressing only 
> "single" proposals 
> and if so, what should we do about partial ones?

This is one piece in the current draft of the requirements that needs to be
changed. Systems focused on controlling certain portions of the spam problem
are more likely than a comprehensive proposal. The charter states that the
ASRG will investigate "a framework that allows different systems to be
plugged in to provide different pieces of the solution." This is very
central to the consent framework that we have been discussing. A
well-presented system states some well-defined scope. The evaluation allows
us to understand how well it achieves its specific goals and then understand
how it fits in the overall framework alongside other solutions.

I provided this as feedback directly to the authors off-list in May. To get
others' opinion on my feedback and to spark continued discussion of the
current draft of the req's doc, I'll forward to the list the emails that I
sent off-list in May and June.

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