On Sunday, April 20, 2014 10:08:07 Dave Crocker wrote:
On 4/14/2014 8:28 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
If that's true, it's my impression it's true because the DMARC proponents
insisted any possible working group charter preclude meaningful changes to
the base specification because the work was already done.
That statement is incorrect.
What we pressed for was to get community rough consensus on the kinds of
technical work that needed to be done to the -base (core) specification,
/before/ chartering the effort.
This was explicitly to avoid the trap of declaring the existing spec
unstable -- and that's what starting an open-ended development effort
automatically does -- when there was no demonstrated need to do that.
In spite of repeated efforts -- in at least two venues -- to get folks
to state what work they thought was needed and to get community support
for that work, no tasks were produced.
That meant that any wg charter permitting changes to the protocol would
have been entirely without any foundation based on need.
In fact, it would have a foundation of NON-need.
Right. The alternate defense against a WG charter that allowed for anything
more than wordsmithing was to insist that proponents of a working group go do
the work of a working group to evaluate the protocol and figure out if it
needed any changes before such a working group would be chartered.
That didn't make any more sense.
Scott K