SM wrote:
Hi Stephen,
At 17:00 09-03-2009, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Firstly, we're not authors in the sense of being personally
responsible for each word - the ability and willingness to write
something with which you disagree is laudable in many cases and in
this case. Secondly, I don't think anyone would accuse John of a
chronic tendency to understatement. So, no I don't believe his
statement has any such implication,
The authors do not have to agree to every word in their draft if the
document is the work of a WG. It is laudable that authors include
material they may not fully agree with. I appreciate John Levine's
candidness.
Quoting part of the message from the DKIM Chair:
"Then there's the question of where ADSP stands, and whether it can
proceed as is,
or needs to be changed in light of the "errata". Pasi may have some
comments on
this, and I know the working group will. We've been holding ADSP up
for a while,
and we need to release it and move it forward."
The WG will probably be asking the IETF community to review and comment
on the ADSP draft. If one of the authors has serious concerns about
that draft, it is better to have them voiced out now so that the WG can
decide where ADSP stands.
I consider that John's concerns have already been "voiced," even if
most recently in a quite sloppy manner. To be fair though, John has
been consistent throughout the entire process. And the WG has
consistently kept on with ADSP on the standards track.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html