[mail-vet-discuss] Draft as of 9/4/2007

[Murray S. Kucherawy]

Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> By "just to make it available for wider commentary", do you mean 
> submit it for standards status?  I can't think of what else you might 
> mean.
Yes, though not yet (partly because I don't feel it's quite ready yet,
partly because I don't know the process in its entirety yet).

I'm talking more about reaching consensus here, and then exposing it to
some of the communities you listed.  I've already pointed ietf-dkim at
it more than once, but I guess the next steps are MAAWG "technical" and
ietf-822.

>    a) Be able to demonstrate a broad base of direct support -- is 
> there a reasonable extensive history of commentary and revision 
> involving one or more open fora with an interesting range of active 
> participants?
In here yes, but this community is somewhat limited in size.  That's why
I'm interested in exposing it to a wider audience.

>    b) Be able to demonstrate a reasonable degree of implementation 
> experience and preferably also some use experience, if practical.  
> That isn't on any formal process requirement, but it makes a world of 
> difference when debating against the inevitable abstract theory 
> "criticisms" that seem to come from assorted well-intentioned, bright, 
> naive folk in positions of some leverage.
I think I've got this covered at least via the implementations I maintain.
> It has had a thoroughly legitimate and productive development 
> history.  So it's not that I am actually worried about the quality of 
> the work, or spec. It's that I think it needs at least one more 
> iteration of review by a somewhat broader audience, to gain a critical 
> mass of demonstrable support.  (Unless I've missed that it's already 
> been done, and gosh, that just never happens.)
This is what I'm hoping to do next.