I would just like someone to give me an official (or failing that
accurate) indication as to whether there will be a BOF.
It seemed like a good idea to get the drafts in before the cut off but
that did not necessarily mean there would be a BOF and at the event on
Tuesday folk were thinking that there was not going to be one.
I really need to know tommorow so I can book travel.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mailsig(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mailsig(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Ned
Freed
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:30 PM
To: Dave Crocker
Cc: IETF MASS WG
Subject: Re: MASS BOF Agenda and Proposed charter
This sentence in particular makes makes me particular worried:
"The specification will be based on the
<draft-*-dkim-*.txt> draft
documents and will make only the minimal changes deemed
essential
to the viability of the service"
Just to be clear: The text is entirely unofficial. It is
candidate
text that some folks (including me) generated. It is
subject to IESG
approval, of course, and the IESG is sensitive to exactly
the sort of
issue you are raising.
You are certainly not the first to react to that particular
sentence.
It was written with quite a bit of care, but also a clear
understanding that it would be sensitive. My own belief is
that there
is plenty of IETF precedence for such language, but that
does not mean
there is/will be consensus to use it for this group.
I believe charters are usually a matter of some general, public
agreement. (Formalistically, it is approved by the IESG rather than
necessarily being based on "group rough consensus", but open debate
and agreement seems likely to provide useful input to the IESG.)
So, this is a long-winded way of encouraging discussion about the
draft charter.
For example the issue you raise, about the text you cite,
would seem
*entirely* appropriate to discuss.
Dave, FWIW, I think the proposed text goes a bit too far.
Specifically, I have no problem with saying the work will be
based on the DKIM documents - having read them they seem to
be to be the right starting point. But as for the rest - the
problem is simply that there are a lot of people who are
willing to standardize stuff that may work in their neck of
the woods but isn't going to work well if at all elsewhere,
and who refuse to believe that those elswheres matter. And
that could easily make getting consensus that a change is in
fact critical difficult.
Had you said something like "deemed useful to improve the
viability of services based on these specifications" I would
have no problem. That's about where the bar needs to be IMO.
Ned