Re: summary the discussion so far

At 6:26 PM +0800 2/1/04, James Seng wrote:
>So lets go back to IETF tradition. We need someone to write an i-d 
>with all the concerns and requirements, and then make our discussion 
>around that.
>>
>>No, let's not.
>
>Making an I-D would resolve the IP issues, particularly copyright 
>consideration.

I am not a lawyer, and neither are you. Having said that, I cannot 
imagine how the above is true. IP issues usually fall into four 
categories: patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. A 
message on a mailing list saying that a particular idea is good is 
sufficient as prior art for patents, at least in the US. You cannot 
copyright ideas anywhere in the world that is a signatory to the 
Berne Convention. It is too early for us to trademark anything, and 
there are no trade secrets yet.

>>This is *not* an IETF project. It is an independent group, at least 
>>for now. To date, the IETF method of creating requirements 
>>documents has often failed badly. (For those who were not involved 
>>with IDNS, James knows this very well from personal experience!)
>
>Yes, IDN requirements was withdraw and was not published eventually. 
>But the process of capturing the requirements helps to align a lot 
>of discussion, of those within scope and those not.

And, as I said earlier, it is *way* too early for us to scope this. 
If you want to start being narrow, you are obviously free to; I think 
that is unwise for something as important as next-generation mail.

>It is a useful process so long the author(s) dont get too attached 
>to it and wants to make it into an RFC later.

...which happens almost all the time.

>>That's great, and it's *not* an Internet Draft. I would really 
>>prefer to see things like this than Internet Drafts, at least for 
>>many months.
>
>Okay, lets keep it this way then if others has no objections.

Um, I wasn't suggesting that your wiki was the only way. I expect 
that many folks will create their own discussion areas, write their 
own evolving lists of requirements, and so on. From the discussion so 
far, it is clear that all of those will not overlap. This is a Good 
Thing for the beginning phases.

At 1:11 PM +0200 2/1/04, Jari Arkko wrote:
>I'm not much of a believer in requirements drafts at the IETF. We
>often seem to be lost in the details of long wish lists and miss
>the point.

That is my experience as well.

>However, structured and well-thought out docouments are going to
>be needed if we hope to succeed in this process.

The question is when to even start the document. "Two days after the 
discussion has started" may not be an appropriate time.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium