Mail Maintenance
charter-ietf-mailmaint-02

[Ballot comment]
No Objection, but I am still not sure how the WG will discuss things with ISE, if ISE is not reaching to the working group? And also if a work goes to ISE first, how will be the WG in the loop? I am asking this as it seems like there is an ambition in the charter to work with ISE in cases.

[Ballot comment]
I tend to agree that having a WG to discuss issues related to email is generally a good idea. Just one comment.

> Work proposed for MAILMAINT may arrive via direct proposals, or it may be referred via one or more  DISPATCH-style working groups. Calls for Adoption are required for all work proposals.

Isn't that how most work gets introduced in a WG? What is special about this WG to call this out?

[Ballot comment]
The 00-06 version is a big improvement, hence I am clearing my previous BLOCK.

```
The MAILMAINT (“Mail Maintenance”) working group will consider projects in the email space that are too small to warrant construction of a dedicated working group. This will take advantage of a common community to consider these proposals rather than forming a series of disparate but related communities.
```

The above text from the charter is redundant with the usual process for a WG. Consider removing it. Same for the following paragraph.

`All new work will be announced` is it about soon-to-be-adopted or already-adopted work ?

`Milestones will be used to track all approved work, including during chartering and rechartering.` also seems redundant with the normal WG process. Consider removing it.

[Ballot comment]
I think having a maintenance group for email is a good idea (same as ipsecme, and lamps).  It seems like there is always a 'good idea' in the various dispatches where the conclusion is that there is no where for the authors/proponents to go.

I have one comment:
It is not clear to me how the second para (which is a parenthetical), and the last bullet play in the same charter. 

The second para defines email to be the protocol which starts with RFC 5321 and RFC 5322. but doesn't include extensions. 
The last bullet says that a dedicated working group is preferred when updating the base documents (5321 and 5322). 

Seems like these two statements are contradictory?  no?  Unless mailmaint is the dedicated working group?  But would you discuss chartering inside the charter for the working group you are forming?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my blocking points. This charter is better that previous one.

I have questions/comments which I believe would improve the charter if answered/addressed -

  # is this a correct reading of the charter that this working group will only take on standard track items? and rest goes to the Independent stream? if yes, what is the criteria for such decision? If no, then I think it would need some wording to make it clear.

  # it says -

        The working group should discuss such proposals with the ISE and share the results of the working group’s consideration.

    Are we describing some different workflows that usually what is followed when documents goes to ISE? What if the proponents directly go to ISE without consulting with this working group? How does this WG tracks what goes to ISE? I seems, this expectation a bit unnecessary if we are not defining new workflow, and may be we should just relay on ISE to ping the working group of related work and in the IESG conflict resolution.

[Ballot comment]
Unlike some of the other reviewers, it makes sense to me to charter this as a standalone working group. It seems much in the mold of RTGWG insofar as it’s a place for work items that have some commonality but don’t rise to the level of needing the overhead of a full working group. I do see why the concern, but after reviewing the “in the manner of dispatch” bullet list a few times, I don’t see anything you should change. I guess it might be helpful to emphasize somehow that work shouldn’t be given agenda time unless the authors and chairs have a good faith belief that it falls in the first two bullets and not the last two bullets, the latter being your diving catch option.

One nit, “consulting the responsible Area Director for guidance where appropriate” — it seems to me that either the charter should provide guidance about what constitutes “appropriate”, or you might as well drop this clause, as written I don’t see how it does anything to help guide the working group chairs or participants. Besides, it’s redundant with the later “express approval” paragraph. In fact, given the existence of that latter paragraph, maybe delete the “where appropriate” paragraph entirely? Failing that, reconcile the contradiction.

The “change control“ sentence is also just a restatement of existing process, but I assume it’s there for a reason...

Finally, I for one don’t have a problem with a tiny bit of lightheartedness in the wording, as long as it doesn’t create a barrier to understanding, which I don’t think “indigestible dumpling“ does. But then again, I like dumplings.

[Ballot block]
I am not sure understand the charter. This is clearly trying to define the procedure on how the new work need to be done in a potential main maintenance working group in the charter. This create the confusion among the motivation, goal and deliverables of this working group with the process the working group would follow.

I am also not certain that referring to dispatch or alldispatch working group is the right thing here. Note that alldispatch is still experimental, and if that is successful then I am not sure about keeping the dispatch working group. Thus, why do we are defining one working group charter with those references?

Finally, "indigestible dumpling" is super unfair to dumplings, specially who likes them, please fix your digestive system :-). On the serious note, I would strongly avoid such phrasing in any IETF working group charter and use proper description in simple English.

I am of course supporting Eric's and Roman's block.

[Ballot comment]
** “But ADs are notoriously busy, and the ISE should not be considered a dumping ground or the option of last resort.”

Consider if this the right tone of charter text.  IMO, I think the sentence can be removed as it doesn’t provide meaningful background to explain or scope the planned work.

** “The MAILMAINT (“Mail Maintenance”) working group will consider projects in the email space that are too small to warrant construction of a dedicated working group. This will take advantage of a common community to consider these proposals rather than forming a series of disparate but related communities.”

I don’t understand.  Who are these “disparate, but related communities”?  I thought the premise was that the work under discussion was too small to form it’s own WG (community)?

** “The working group will not accept for processing any documents that describe something already in practice that was not developed with IETF consensus, except in cases where change control is fully transferred to the IETF.”

How is this need for change control any different than any other WG?  In what way is this unique scope?

** “Such work can otherwise be taken by its proponents to other venues, as discussed above.” 

What venues are those?

** Depending on if this is a dispatch WG, what are the milestones of this WG?

[Ballot block]
I share many of Éric Vyncke’s concerns.

** Is this a dispatch-style WG or a “last-resort WG” for email work that has no other place to go?

The ALLDISPATCH experiment is cited as a consideration.  Why couldn’t this proposed WG have no dispatch function and only be chartered to work on “small things” and the dispatching occurs via ALLDISPATCH?  Isn’t the result of “The work is appropriate to be done in the IETF, and the proposal is narrow enough that it can be developed within the working group community directly” something ALLDISPATCH or even DISPATCH could have done?

Is the intent for a multi-hop dispatch: work comes this WG, who then dispatches it to ALLDISPATCH, who might dispatch it further?

Should all mail topics come here first to be routed elsewhere?

If the ALLDISPATCH experiment turns out to be a success, would this WG recharter to remove dispatch functions? close?

** How is the topic of email scoped?  Is it mail protocols (e.g., IMAP)? mail headers and formats?  security (e.g., S/MIME)?

** “Engaging historical "indigestible dumpling" topics, such as the definition of trace fields, shall be avoided, and such work deferred to other venues.”

What are these “dumpling” topics that are to be avoided.  A typical WG charter will explicitly spell out what is out of scope.  As written, I’m not sure how this is actionable.

What are the other venues this WG would shunt topics to?

[Ballot comment]
** “But ADs are notoriously busy, and the ISE should not be considered a dumping ground or the option of last resort.”

Consider if this the right tone of charter text.  IMO, I think the sentence can be removed as it doesn’t provide meaningful background to explain or scope the planned work.

** “The MAILMAINT (“Mail Maintenance”) working group will consider projects in the email space that are too small to warrant construction of a dedicated working group. This will take advantage of a common community to consider these proposals rather than forming a series of disparate but related communities.”

I don’t understand.  Who are these “disparate, but related communities”?  I thought the premise was that the work under discussion was too small to form it’s own WG (community)?

** “The working group will not accept for processing any documents that describe something already in practice that was not developed with IETF consensus, except in cases where change control is fully transferred to the IETF.”

How is this need for change control any different than any other WG?  In what way is this unique scope?

** “Such work can otherwise be taken by its proponents to other venues, as discussed above.” 

What venues are those?

[Ballot block]
I am afraid that this proposed charter is rather vague...

What is considered as "mail" ? Suggest to enumerate previous WG or something less vague.

Isn't 'Proposed new work will be reviewed in the manner' the usual process for all WGs ?

While the use of "indigestible dumpling" may be clear for some having the right history/reference, it is not clear to me ;) (would it be perceived as offensive ?)

[Ballot comment]
I think this is a fine "experiment", although I find the argumentation a bit weak. The Responsible AD work to do for a "minor" piece of work as this WG would allow itself to work on, does not seem very different from that same AD sponsoring the document. But at least this new WG would provide a discussion venue and list for the work to get into better shape, which hopefully would help the AD :)