-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Alessandro
Vesely
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 2:19 AM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Work group future
On 03/Apr/11 18:45, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I think when it's clear there's no more progress that can be made,
you close down and move on. You can always start up a WG later
when there's a chance for better progress or new work to be done.
Is there a difference between the WG and the mailing list, in this
respect? Shutting down the mailing list implies possibly different
members whenever a new DKIM WG will be started up.
I actually don't know. Someone else could chime in. I'm sure the archives are
kept "forever" though.
There are other DKIM lists around that could become a new home for such
conversation though. Or you could start your own.
Also, "possibly different members" is not necessarily a bad thing. Some fresh
perspective might be quite welcome.
Our outstanding chartered items have been getting nowhere for
years. It seems nonsensical to keep it open.
I see some agree on this point. And yet, rechartering was discussed
withing this WG just one year ago, and the text adjusted so as to meet
consensus.
There's no current consensus to recharter again though. Would you like to
propose a new charter?
Was the charter perceived as a compromise?
I didn't get that impression.
I, for one, was not 100%
satisfied with it, but still preferred to remain in the WG to discuss
the parts that I was interested in. Possibly my decision was wrong,
because a smaller and more agile WG may have worked better. RFC 2418
considers closed membership for "design teams" within a WG, but I
never actually saw that here.
I can't recall: Did you propose such a design team?
Getting a smaller, more agile WG is certainly an option. You just need to find
some like-minded people that are willing to collaborate on a charter, and then
get it into the system for consideration. The process is well-documented.
But keep in mind that R&D is not an IETF activity. The IETF does standards.
We haven't been able to come up with a standard to do policy that is
universally palatable. It may be that more statistics gathering and research
would solve this, but that hasn't happened. Keeping a WG alive is expensive,
and I daresay we're not offering up much bang for the buck these days (other
than perhaps entertainment value to outsiders).
Essentially, the R&D should be done before the IETF part of things starts up.
Yes, the horses are out already. However, in general, I'm very
interested in learning why spam hasn't been stopped by the IETF, and
this sort of WG dynamics seems to be part of the response. (I wasn't
in the MARID, I only read about it after the fact.)
That's a fairly grandiose expectation. One might also wonder why law
enforcement hasn't managed to stop drug abuse, cybercrime, or myriad other
plagues on society. The issue is that the infrastructure of the system allows
it, and I can't even imagine a system that is problem-free given the nature of
the predators and prey in these scenarios.
We just can't get the spammers to set the evil bit on their mail, alas. It
would make things so much easier.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html