Subject: [Dbound] Charter redux

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2015 10:56:05 -0800

Hi all,

I worked with Barry a bit on this over the holidays.  A revised version is
now available at the same URL:

https://github.com/mskucherawy/docs/blob/master/charter-dbound

Comments?

-MSK

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 4 Jan 2015 01:54:35 -0000

>https://github.com/mskucherawy/docs/blob/master/charter-dbound

Basically, it's fine.  On line 41-42, it says "different solutions are
needed for the email, web, and equivalence problems, and possibly also
for other problems in this space" but it hasn't said what the email or
web problems are.

I would suggest "different solutions are needed for the various
problems in this space."

R's,
John

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 15:45:15 +0900

> for other problems in this space" but it hasn't said what the email or

This shouldn't needed. It could well be that the structure of the 
problem is the same for web and email, but that the boundaries are 
different (e.g. because your hosting provider fully takes care of your 
email to foo.example.com, but you're on your own for the website at 
foo.example.com).

Thanks for creating the Additional Background Information section, it's 
probably the best way in this case to keep both lengtheners (e.g. Dave 
Crocker) and shorteners (like me) happy.

Small nits:

- There is 'email' and 'mail'. Please streamline.
- "and such rechartering may only be considered after completion of
   the base work." gets me confused because the word "may" has too
   much specific semantics in an IETF context.

Otherwise, I'm fine with the current proposal.

Regards,   Martin.

> _______________________________________________
> Dbound mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound
>

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 15:54:23 +0900

Sorry to correct myself:

> Otherwise, I'm fine with the current proposal.

One important issue: The document at 
https://github.com/equalsJeffH/dbound should be submitted as an ID (and 
cited as such) before the charter is finalized.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 07:03:52 -0800

FROM:

> However, the working
> group may discover that different solutions are needed for the email,
> web, and equivalence problems, and possibly also for other problems in
> this space.

TO:

     However, the working group may discover that different solutions
     are needed to solve different usage requirements.

Citing different applications presumes that apps are what might
determine the lines of demarcation between solutions.  From what I've
seen, apps are merely correlate, where the real distinctions are
underlying semantics of "related" and/or different policies associated
with "related".

Given that the working isn't starting with a single specification that
has strong support, let's not have the charter build in a potentially
distracting assumption.

Besides that, the text I'm suggesting is shorter...

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 21:10:39 -0800

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:54 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> One important issue: The document at https://github.com/equalsJeffH/dbound
> should be submitted as an ID (and cited as such) before the charter is
> finalized.
>

I agree that that should happen.  Jeff, can you make it so?

-MSK

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 15:55:59 +0100

On the whole I'd say, "Get on with it."  Let's get the thing to the
IESG.  But I think Dave's change is fine.

Eliot

---

From: Kurt Andersen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 07:05:36 -0800

> https://github.com/mskucherawy/docs/blob/master/charter-dbound

Looks good - thanks for taking the time to sort through the lingo issues.
Let's kick it into gear.

--Kurt Andersen