Barry Leiba wrote:
> I suggest that the IESG replace that paragraph in the proposed DKIM
> charter with the paragraph above, and that we move on from this topic
> to any others that need to be dealt with.
Well, I guess no one else is concerned about the sequence that has just
We carefully develop charter language through two, complete, multi-month
rounds of open collaboration, including significant focus on exactly the
language in question, both times.
Some folks come in at the late stage of the second open process and seek
to change this text, but they fail to develop support.
So they re-assert their concerns again during the IETF charter last
call, and now the chairs quickly concede the change, even before getting
support from the rest of the group.
It's not that the proposed language is bad, it is that this sequence
bodes rather poorly for dealing with further demands from folks who fail
to gain support.
And it does not help that two of those doing the (re-)demanding are area
directors and another an IAB member, raising the fear that the current
concession is strictly to appease the authority those folks have.
All this with no specific technical concerns driving the demand.
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
Ietf mailing list