Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter
2005-11-15 22:19:05
Eric,
>>> communities
very often want things to remain unchanged when they bring them
to IETF. I'm saying that it's not appropriate to nail that down
in the charter.
...
So the issue does not warrant marginalization as merely being due to
the original constituency.
I heard objections to this at the Paris IETF and we're in in the
middle of a formal consensus call now and I'm objecting to the
proposed wording at this time. I don't see a procedural problem
with that. That's why we have consensus calls.
1. I assume the "objections to this" that you cite were to this wording of
constraint. Are you saying that you believe that the Paris BOF demonstrated
a significant constituency in favor of the alternative wording that you are
proposing? (Sorry. I just re-read your note and realized that you were not
proposing alternative wording.) Anyhow, since you cite the fact that some
folks were unhappy, way back at the time of the Paris BOF, I assume that
their unhappiness a) is specifically relevant to the charter change you are
seeking, and b) that you have some data that are more recent, to counter the
hum of support in Vancouver.
2. As I understand what took place in Vancouver, the more recent BOF had a
nearly unanimous hum in favor of forming the working group, using the
existing draft charter text.
3. You attributed the desire to make no changes as being "communities very
often want things to remain unchanged when they bring them to IETF." I
pointed out that the consensus on the current wording was more broad than
thay original community. Since your attribution is not supported by recent
events, it might be worth your responding to the point rather than directing
things over to a separate and secondary issue of procedural timing, which
was not something I expressed any concern about.
4. Your original concern was justified entirely by "it's not appropriate to
nail that down in the charter." You offer no specific basis for that claim.
However it is worth noting that it is actually pretty typical for existing
technology that is brought into the IETF to attend to this issue carefully
and to specify rather conservative scope for permissible changes. So,
again, I suggest that the burden of making a case for alternative language
falls on the shoulders of the personal calling for the change. Are you sure
you want your case to be entirely in the form of "it's not appropriate to
nail that down in the charter"?
d/
ps. yes, folks, i agree that i have made my point, however well or poorly,
and that my iterating another round (after this) will not be helpful.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter, (continued)
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter, Jim Fenton
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter, Eric Rescorla
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter, Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter, Eric Rescorla
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter, Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter, Eric Rescorla
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter,
Dave Crocker <=
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter, Eric Rescorla
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter, Tony Hansen
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter, Mark Delany
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter, Mark Delany
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter, Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter, Eric Rescorla
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter, Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter, Arvel Hathcock
- [ietf-dkim] DKIM Charter Comments, Jim Schaad
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM Charter Comments, Dave Crocker
|
|
|