Robert Elz wrote:
However, if this ...
is an example of the quality of argument that is swaying the consensus of
the group, then the IESG (and IETF as a whole) should be taking a very very
close look at what is being produced, and most probably, simply abandoning
What this sub-thread is mostly an example of is why it is generally unproductive
for a Last Call to try to review the details of a working group's decision
For any interesting working group effort there are many interesting decisions.
("Interesting" is intended as a compressed form of saying "complex, difficult,
controversial and requiring protracted consideration.")
IMO, interesting decisions are where working groups do their real work. They are
what distinguishes a working group effort from a brief discussion on the open
IETF list. That makes it problematic to try to later re-create the wg discussion
on the ietf list.
Choice of DNS records definitely falls in the category of interesting, and
qualified for it long before DKIM.
Let me suggest that what ought to be relevant to the Last Call is whether the
working group considered the question carefully?
It might further be relevant to ask whether that decision was made in
consultation with -- or reviewed by -- content specialists?
Any one effort to summarize that protracted consideration is primarily going to
serve exactly the unintended purpose that your response reflects, namely to
invite more debate about process than content.
The very last thing that we ought to try is to place the DKIM effort into the
middle of a protracted, and continuing, debate about DNS enhancement.
There are at least two other venues already established for that in the IETF.
Ietf mailing list