It seems to me that there are two possible effects a limited
charter can produce. One that precludes further work in a
given direction, and one that allows that further work to
happen in the future. Now, nobody's omniscient so the latter
is always a calculated risk, but it sure seems to me that
DKIM with respect to reputation is in the latter rather
than former category. I for one would be rather dismayed if
it did not lend itself well to reputation/accredation
systems. It seems to me that the risk is pretty low,
so divide and conquer seems more prudent.
Mike
Dave Crocker wrote:
There is a major issue in the language that you keep refusing to
discuss.
Generally, no one participating in an IETF process is obligated to discuss any
particular issue. In fact, that is part of the vetting (validating) process on
which the IETF is based. When someone puts an idea forward, the affirmative
responsibility to recruit support for it rests with that person, not with the
group. If they are not able to recruit that support, the idea is not pursued.
My sense of the ietf-mailsig mailing list record is that there is a lack of
interest in pursuing work on specifying reputation mechanisms, in this group, at
this time. That is not an assertion about the importance of the topic. Rather
it is about a question of project management for this nascent group.
Anyone who disagrees with that assessment should document the claimed mailing
list rough consensus that demonstrates that.
My own sense of the comments about the proposed charter text is that there is a
reasonably clear rough consensus in favor of the current, revised text. Rough
consensus does not require unanimity, of course.
For reasons I have already advanced I think that XKMS should be
addressed in a separate draft.
Obviously, to discuss the merits of particular reputation mechanisms would be
diving into the content of that topic. In the absence of group rough consensus
to pursue that topic, in this venue and within the scope of the charter, then
discussing the merits of particular reputation mechanisms is out of scope.
Attempting to keep this work out of scope is futile. The language as
specified is not acceptable and unless it is changed I will submit an
alternative charter proposal to the IESG.
You are, of course, free to do that.
- - - -
1. The existing DKIM specification does not provide an "interface" to a
reputation system. Hence a working group effort to define one is entirely
open-ended.
You are pre-judging this issue according to your own prejudices here.
Actually, I am post-judging it. My review of the mailist activity fails to
demonstrate support for pursuing this topic, in this venue, at this time.
It appears that your assessment is different, so please document it. (I cannot
document the absence of discussion. By contrast, a claim that there is group
rough consensus in favor of something will typically produce an affirmative
record of that support.)
I note that in the MARID effort you argued strenuously to keep reputation
mechanisms out of scope then introduced one to the group yourself.
There is a difference between working group effort scoping, versus the scope an
individual chooses. In addition, please note that I have not said that
reputation mechanisms are not important. In fact I have said quite the
opposite. The question is one of sequencing work and creating sufficient focus,
to facilitate making progress.
2. To be productive, a working group needs to have careful
focus.
It also needs to deliver a useful product.
Are you saying that an IETF standard for discrete authentication mechanism is
not useful unless there is simultaneously an IETF standard for interfacing to
reputation and accreditation services? I have not seen mailing list rough
consensus in favor of that view.
To repeat: so far, no such constituency
has been evident.
That there is a constituency is very evident, the only debate here is
over the size of the constituency.
indeed.
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net