On 15/10/10 19:48, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 10/15/2010 10:45 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
In this case, I don't recollect an objection, so thus far, it seems
to me that Dave's correct on this one. I think its perfectly fine
for an editor to try to close off things that seem to have a clear
consensus like this.
Stephen -- the issue here is the procedural one that Dave ignores
*any* input *at all* from people he filters. It doesn't matter
whether it's a typo -- ignored. This has been true of every document
in this working group that he has edited. In the case of 4871-bis
that means that I can have *no* input whatsoever, even though
I guess all I can say is that amongst this group, there are
lots of people who argue a lot, and yes, there are patterns
to that, but nothing that in my opinion, based on list traffic
and DKIM meetings etc. amounts to the kind of problem you
mention above.
More generally, and not really addressed to you Mike, but since
this is that kind of message: I think it'd also be good if
people could bear in mind that we're not saving or endangering
the planet here - we're moving an RFC along the standards track
by making very very minor changes and clarifications in a
quite controlled fashion. (Most of which will be ignored by
many coders;-) Some of the recent discussion seems, to me,
quite overblown, (the volume of discussion absolutely
definitely is), given the issues that are actually at stake.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html