[mail-vet-discuss] list management and invitees

[Murray S. Kucherawy]

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Dave Crocker wrote:
> So, let me try an empirical test to answer this:
>
> 1. Is the spec auth-result spec reasonably mature?
>
> 2. Are the anticipated changes reasonably small?
>
> 3. Is the primary goal to do a final round of public tuning and vetting, in 
> support of submitting as an individual submission to Proposed Standard or is 
> the desire to spin up a working group?  (I recommend the former.)
>
> My own sense of things is that 1 and 2 are yes and 3 is yes to the first 
> part.
>
> That means the list should be wide open, but with firmly stated focus and 
> enforcement.

Bullseye.

I talked with Eric about this at lunch yesterday and he posited that this 
is best targeted as an Informational track document since its implications 
do not cross administrative boundaries, which for example is why LMTP is 
Informational track and not Proposed Standards track.