Re: [anti-spam-wg] Re: (MAAWG comment on) RIPE anti-abuse draft
To: RIPE anti-spam WG anti-spam-wg@localhost
From: Dave Crocker dhc@localhost
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:25:19 -0800
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Nigel Titley wrote:
So I still propose that the update goes ahead, with very little additional
change from the annotated draft at
I would agree with Rodney, that the annotated draft goes ahead, with more
substantial work reserved for the major update to take place at some time in
A common model, for dealing with the kind of disparity the Cox response suggests
-- between current RIPE text and what Cox is worried about -- is to do exactly
what Rodney suggests: Document the existing world now, and later work on
producing an enhanced document.
What has struck me is that there seem to be quite a few different groups trying
to produce documents covering roughly the same topic. (For example, Sender
I certainly do not suggest that any of them stop what they are doing.
However it might be interesting to try to have a collaboration among core
contributors from each of the different groups, to see whether a combined
document is possible.
First, the exercise might show some strong overlaps, and I suspect it would be
helpful to everyone to see that documented.
Second, it might produce a single document that would be supported by a broad
range of groups, thereby imparting that much more moral force for the document.