On Friday 07 December 2007 09:32, Dave Crocker wrote: > Patrick Peterson wrote: > > I recommend we all agree that we don't know when these things will > > happen. It certainly won't be in less than 12 months and it had better > > be before "pretty much forever". I think we can still agree on the best > > design even if it takes somewhere in this range to realize. We can > > certainly agree that the clock won't start ticking until we have a spec. > > and > > Patrick Peterson wrote: > > Similar to my recommendations on avoiding crystal ball arguments in > > designing SSP, I would like to encourage us to avoid arguing about SSP > > market demand. Again this thread from Dave and Arvel is a great > > illustration. > > Patrick, > > Your suggestions would be fine if the standards effort were free, rather > than representing massive direct and opportunity costs, as well as > affecting the complexity -- ie, the basic viability -- of the > specification. > > A sense of the market need/demand for a protocol is fundamental to the > decision to pursue developing it. A sense of the plausible adoption rate > has a massive effect on the types of engineering decisions that are made > about it. > > (By the way, the issue of market demand is formally written into IETF > documents about chartering an effort. The comment about adoption is simple > experience: SSP seeks to change existing email handling. Changes to > existing service take a very long time. We have lots and lots of > experience to back this statement up.) > > The difference between narrow, immediate need versus broader, long-term > need (as wells as between combinatorials of these) will typically have a > very large impact on the specific engineering choices that are made and the > way they are pursued, such as shoving something out the door without > testing it, versus taking a more gradual approach that permits learning > from taking smaller steps. > > For myself, I am clear there is an immediate need among a small set of very > important service operators. Given that we all know of at least one > real-world example of a private agreement for an equivalent service -- as > well as statements from some others that they want the same service -- I > think we have a solid basis for believing that there will be uptake among > this market niche. > > What we also have is, at best, conflicting data about the broader market. > It makes no sense for us to decide to ignore this fact. > > d/
We had this discussion when the working group was chartered. The decision to include SSP in the charter is a reflection of the consensus. Given that, is there clear and convincing evidence that would merit overturning the established consensus? Scott K P.S. Please could we do something new and stop redoing the last two years of discussion on this topic. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
