Subject: Re: email and spam (was: Re: namedroppers, continued)

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 20:51:33 GMT

*> > Could we not think of an FPS (frequently proposed solutions)
  *> > where each defeated "solutions" would be listed and quickly
  *> > discussed. There would be two good reasons:
  *> > 
  *> > 1. to provide a true list of what has been proposed. It would
  *> > save time to all and provide a good negative check list for
  *> > those with an idea. At least it would be new to the FPS: it
  *> > would be added or used.
  *> > 
  *> > 2. very often the roots of the true solution is something
  *> > which has been half thought and overlooked. Or something
  *> > triggered in someone's mind by another idea.
  *> 
  *> Variations on this idea have been proposed to the IESG and IAB
  *> several times, and have not gone anywhere.  I'll leave
  *> explanations as to why to someone else, but  at a minimum, there
  *> has been a shortage of volunteers to maintain a "dumb ideas
  *> archive" (I know, that isn't quite what you said) and a shortage
  *> of entities willing to shield such volunteers from liability.

John,

True.  However, a useful, and perhaps feasible, approach would be for
a person knowledgable about the problem area to write an
Informational "review" RFC about it.  Such an RFC would review the
problem, the suggested solutions, and their up/downsides.  Such a
document would not have to be complete to be very useful; a snapshot at
a particular time would be a big step forward.

Bob Braden

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:47:57 -0500

--On Monday, 13 January, 2003 20:51 +0000 Bob Braden
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
>   *> > Could we not think of an FPS (frequently proposed
> solutions)   *> > where each defeated "solutions" would be
> listed and quickly   *> > discussed. There would be two good
> reasons:
>   *> > 
>   *> > 1. to provide a true list of what has been proposed. It
> would   *> > save time to all and provide a good negative
> check list for   *> > those with an idea. At least it would be
> new to the FPS: it   *> > would be added or used.
>   *> > 
>   *> > 2. very often the roots of the true solution is
> something   *> > which has been half thought and overlooked.
> Or something   *> > triggered in someone's mind by another
> idea.
>   *> 
>   *> Variations on this idea have been proposed to the IESG
> and IAB   *> several times, and have not gone anywhere.  I'll
> leave   *> explanations as to why to someone else, but  at a
> minimum, there   *> has been a shortage of volunteers to
> maintain a "dumb ideas   *> archive" (I know, that isn't quite
> what you said) and a shortage   *> of entities willing to
> shield such volunteers from liability.
> 
> John,
> 
> True.  However, a useful, and perhaps feasible, approach would
> be for a person knowledgable about the problem area to write an
> Informational "review" RFC about it.  Such an RFC would review
> the problem, the suggested solutions, and their up/downsides.
> Such a document would not have to be complete to be very
> useful; a snapshot at a particular time would be a big step
> forward.

Bob,

Absolutely.  But such a hypothetical author would have to be
very motivated.  Posting of an I-D would almost certainly
produce a large amount of mail.  Some would be sympathetic,
others would make useful suggestions, still others would want to
debate particular points based on more or less realistic
perceptions about how the world works, the morals of spamming.
Then the document would go to the IESG and RFC Editor.  While I
agree with your observation that completeness would not be
needed for utility, previous experience predicts that IESG
members would nit-pick the document, or just stall, until all of
the points that any IESG member considered important were
covered, and covered in a way compatible with that IESG member's
views.  If views on the IESG conflicted, the document could
easily be help up forever, and I note that there is no appeal
against IESG delay or failure to take an action.  Then, again
based on experience, the odds seem high that the RFC Editor
would delay it, requesting editorial and formatting changes that
are not covered in any written style manual, not responding to
questions about those requests for weeks or months at a time,
and so on.   

The combination of these processes could easily lead to a delay
of six to nine months or longer between the time the author
thought he or had a finished document and the time of
publication, by which time the document might well be obsolete
(producing more abuse for the author). 

So, while I agree that such a document would be useful, I would
imagine that someone would need to be either extremely motivated
or quite naive about how IETF and the publication process
functions to try writing it.  It is, unfortunately, much easier
to ignore repetitions of unworkable ideas and possibly to try to
briefly explain the problems with them.

regards,
    john

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:34:40 -0800

Folks,

Monday, January 13, 2003, 1:47:57 PM, you wrote:
>> solutions)

John> Absolutely.  But such a hypothetical author would have to be
John> very motivated.

Would there be some benefit in taking the first step of simply listing FPSs,
without doing their detailed documentation?

d/
-- 
 Dave <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:14:13 +0000

>without doing their detailed documentation?

A small additional step might be FPS list + URL (of archived mailing list 
proposal).  The discussion thread should be easy enough to find from that.

Also, I've found that if a mailing list is archived with simple web access 
for each message, Google can be remarkably good at finding old messages.

#g

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<[email-masked]>