Subject: [Rucus] Minor quibble with draft-schwartz-rucus-problem-statement-01

From: Dan York <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:09:08 -0500

David,

I just had a look at the RUCUS problem statement you put out today:

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schwartz-rucus-problem-statement-01

and while I will have some further feedback later, I did just one to  
make one minor point about something in your introduction:
------
    Fortunately (or unfortunately) we have a large body of work already
    completed in other similar areas such as email and as such the
    guiding principles of this WG MUST be:

    What has been done right

    What has been done wrong

    What should have been done earlier
------

My issue is your last point.  I do NOT think it will be helpful if  
this group gets mired down in "What should have been done earlier".
We are where we are and, IMHO, need to focus on how we move the  
process forward.   (So my feedback would be that this point should be  
either stricken or clarified for future drafts.)

My 2 cents,
Dan

-- 
Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO    Voxeo Corporation     [email-masked]
Phone: +1-407-455-5859  Skype: danyork  http://www.voxeo.com
Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com  http://www.disruptivetelephony.com

Bring your web applications to the phone.
Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com

_______________________________________________
Rucus mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus

---

From: David Schwartz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:27:20 +0200

Hi dan

My goal is not to rehash or "fix" anything.  I merely asked myself  
"what if I was defining email standards today, knowing what I know  
now? What would I do the same and what would I have implemented  
earlier?"

This is not an attempt to second guess - only to learn from other  
similar technologies.

D

On Feb 18, 2008, at 8:09 PM, Dan York <[email-masked]> wrote:

> process forward.   (So my feedback would be that this point should  
> be either stricken or clarified for future drafts.)
>
> My 2 cents,
> Dan
>
> -- 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________

---

From: Dan York <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:40:11 -0500

David,

> This is not an attempt to second guess - only to learn from other  

Okay, we're on the same page!  (Whew!)

Can I then suggest that perhaps that instead of:

your draft could read:

       What we can learn from other similar technologies (and what  
might have been done earlier in those cases)

Or something like that?

Thanks for clarifying,
Dan