Re: Revised Draft Charter

Here are my comments.  Please pardon my unfamiliarity with WG charters.

> Message Tracking Working Group (msgtrk)
> ---------------------------------------
>
>    Charter
>
>    Chair(s):
>
>        Gordon B. Jones  <[email protected]>
>
>    Applications Area Director(s)
>
>         Keith Moore  [email protected]
>         Patrik Falstrom [email protected]
>
>    Mailing lists:
>
>        General Discussion: [email protected]

1) An IMC member offered up hosting it in his domain.

>        To Subscribe: [email protected]
>        In Body: subscribe msgmib-list <email address> <your name>

2) Since "MIB" is misleading, it has been suggested to rename the list
to msgtrk.

>        Archive: sloop-1.esinet.org/pub/msgmib-archive

3) Clarify that the archive is accessed via FTP (someone asked about
that in the BOF)

>
>     Description of Working Group:
>
>
>      The Message Tracking Working Group will design a diagnostic
>      protocol for a message originator to request information about the

4) At the BOF we agreed that tracking by recipient and administrator
are out of scope.  Do we need to be explicit about that here or is the
"message originator" passage good enough?

>      submission, transport, and delivery of a message independently of

5) In the next paragraph we say "The types of messages to be tracked
include RFC 822bis messages, and optionally others."  Did we have
something in mind by "optionally others"?  If not, the following
sentence fragment here would be better:
      "submission, transport, and delivery of RFC 822 messages..."

>      its delivery status.
>
>      The group will produce two standards track documents: a message
>      tracking model document and a protocol document. The model will
>      state how message tracking is enabled, identify the entities
>      involved (e.g., MTAs, ôtrace serversö), define how and when

6) It might be better to remove the parenthetical comment since "MTAs,
trace servers" are the entities the model document will describe.

>      message tracking requests are issued and answered, define
>      approaches for inter-domain message tracking, and address security
>      issues. The types of messages to be tracked include RFC 822bis
>      messages, and optionally others. Messages will be tracked from the

7) Remove "The types of messages ... and optionally others" if we agree
with bullet 5).

>      time they enter the messaging network up until the time they are
>      delivered (e.g. to an end-userÆs mailbox or a proprietary mail

8) In the BOF, there was discussion about the end point.  Both "final
delivery" and "drop" were used instead of "delivered".  The sample
usage for "drop" was "dropped to an IMAP server" rather than "delivered
to an IMAP server".  Any ideas on the wording for the end point?

>      system).
>
>      The group will design one or more protocols to implement message
>      tracking as described above.
>
>      Goals and Milestones:
>
>      Oct  15 Post an Internet Draft of the message tracking model
>
>      Nov 15 Post revised draft of message tracking model
>
>      43rd IETF discuss protocol, finish model
>
>      Jan 1 post final draft of model, post Internet Draft of protocol
>
>      Feb 15 Post revised draft of protocol
>
>      44 th IETF discuss protocol
>
>      May 1 Post final draft of protocol
>