I think that it is clear that we need to keep some work out of scope or
we will end up with a repeat of MARID.
Specifically the likes of Meta-Signatures has to be out of scope. If the
group is going to be open for anyone to put their 'me-too' scheme on the
table we will never finish.
Submissions are the work of 'individuals' but that does not mean that
the endorsements of major industry groups such as those made at the
Microsoft event in NY on Tuesday are irrelevant.
The point is surely the originality of the ideas proposed to the WG.
Innovation above and beyond the core spec should be encouraged. Demands
that we evaluate six alternative ways to skin the same cat are surely
unproductive.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mailsig(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mailsig(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dave
Crocker
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 10:54 AM
To: IETF MASS WG
Subject: RE: MASS BOF Agenda and Proposed charter
Importance: High
Folks,
While that happened in couple cases, in majority that I know of
parties bring in one or more specification and IETF sits down and
selects best parts on technical level for standardization.
It turns out that the IETF Area Director who is shepherding
this effort, Russ
Housley, took exception to exactly the draft charter sentence
that folks are
discussing here.
Here is what I sent him, in response:
The proffered language is intentionally hard-line. It wasn't
chosen whimsically and I believe there is plenty of IETF
precedent for such language, but I certainly understand
feeling that it goes too far.
Since IETF working groups use prior work in different ways,
ranging from "read the thing before we start talking" to
"only essential changes permitted", I feel that specifying
something about this is appropriate.
We already know that this general topic engenders lots of
undisciplined discussion, so the need for charter constraints
strikes me as clear.
The extent to which a working group like this succeeds or
fails will depend upon how focused it can be kept. Charter
language can be extremely helpful for declaring some topics
out of scope.
So the question is (only) how much to declare topica non-grata.
I think that the basis for deciding how hard a line to take
depends on how urgent the work is, how mature the
specification is, and how significant the installed base is.
In this case, I believe:
- the work is very urgent,
- the specification is reasonably mature, and
- the installed base (admittedly of domainkeys rather than
dkim, but dkim is going to start having installed base
quickly, it appears) is significant enough to try to protect.
Having no constraints will almost certainly result in taking
a long time to produce an incompatible specification. I
think that would kill the effort. <<<<<
So...
A couple of people have proffered alternative text. It would
be particularly
productive to have the discussion focus on finding consensus
on the text.
Given that it is the simplest and smallest change, what do
folks think of Ned
Freed's suggestion:
Had you said something like "deemed useful to improve the
viability
of services based on these specifications" I would have no
problem.
That's about where the bar needs to be IMO.
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net