ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

[ietf-dkim] Re: DKIM proposed loop-closing

2005-11-03 09:54:55

Dave,

Dave Crocker wrote:
The Threats Analysis document is already suffering mission creep, both in terms of "essential" audience and "essential" scope. It began as a document to satisfy Russ as the potential sponsoring AD, who asked for something that described what threats DKIM responds to. It now is being required to satisfy the demands of a larger group of folk, and satisfy a larger set of questions.

That's what happens when you go out standardising, as you well know.

All this, for something that is, in fact, not typically part of the chartering process. (I suspect it is a unique requirement; this is probably the first time it has been placed in the criticl path for chartering.)

I think that its correct to say that this wg formation is a bit
special that way. Historical reasons probably, but my focus is
on getting it done rather than fixing the wg-formation process.
Feel free to take up that cause wherever it belongs, I do wish
you good luck if you decide to invest energy there!

> So characterizing it as "critical in terms of getting the
process done" is automatically problematic.

Nice turn of phrase. Automatic polemic;-)

At the least, it is demonstrating the classic IETF process syndrome of being an open-ended barrier to forward progress. Each iteration produes new requirements. We have no real idea how much more will be imposed on the document, or when the group will get chartered.

IMO, we're getting there. We'll see soon enough if that's right
or wrong.

All this, for work that has a rather mature core specification, multiple interoperable implementations, and a solid constituency eager to deploy it. Were the people imposing these requirements putting in work to satisfy them,
I suppose the situation would not seem quite so bleak.

Its not bleak. Go on - cheer up a bit!

As it is, we are stuck in a morass of vague and changing requirements for analysis, being prevented from doing the real work of producing technical specifications.

Luckily I think that this particular morass is well on the way
to being sorted out, if you read Jim's last mail.

Stephen.

_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org