On Feb 23, 2009, at 10:12 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
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 is right and has a right to be angry. Dave's new direction for
DKIM should require rechartering of the DKIM WG since offering
information unrelated to other header field content was never the
asserted or chartered goal of DKIM.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html