ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Errata

2009-02-23 13:16:35
Stephen Farrell wrote:
So I think this thread seems to have descended into the
fairly pointless and unproductive category. Maybe let's
leave it there while Barry and I tot up the responses
to the concensus call and see what we (as chairs) make
of that.

In particular:

Michael Thomas wrote:
  
Dave CROCKER wrote:
    
A number of the latest set of posts indicate that some folks haven't read 
RFCX 
4871, and I don't mean "carefully". It almost looks as if they haven't read 
it 
at all.  Worse, the point that is constantly being ignored was proffered 
quite 
clearly in the Errata draft.  So it appears they haven't read that document 
either.
      

Dave - you know that a lot of the folks that disagree with you here
have read and contributed substantially to 4871. Saying otherwise
isn't helpful.

  
::snort::
    
...
  
This is rich.

    

Mike - please take a deep breath before hitting "send." Just
being annoyed on the list is also not at all helpful. There
are clearly a bunch of folks who have contributed to 4871
that do agree with the approach Dave is espousing here so
just labelling that revisionism only serves to aggravate and
won't get us closer to resolving the issue.
  
They may agree with Dave, but that does not alter the fact that
what Dave is saying does not match the history or the intent of the
document. I'll add that it is Dave who is using history here to prop
up his argument. That is all the more problematic when it simply
isn't the case.

In any case, I'd like to understand the process by which a substantial
change in semantics is allowed under the rubric of "errata". IIRC,
errata did not even exist until relatively recently, so any other time
this would have required that the document be recycled. To my mind,
this looks a lot like the overall IETF process is being short circuited
in a last-man-standing kind of way. Errata should not be a vehicle to
fly under the radar with fundamental semantic changes. The "primary
output" errata clearly qualifies.

       Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html