ietf-mailsig
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: revised Proposed Charter

2005-07-21 10:25:00


 There is a major issue in the language that you keep refusing to
 discuss. 

Generally, no one participating in an IETF process is obligated to discuss any 
particular issue.  In fact, that is part of the vetting (validating) process on 
which the IETF is based.  When someone puts an idea forward, the affirmative 
responsibility to recruit support for it rests with that person, not with the 
group.  If they are not able to recruit that support, the idea is not pursued.

My sense of the ietf-mailsig mailing list record is that there is a lack of 
interest in pursuing work on specifying reputation mechanisms, in this group, 
at 
this time.  That is not an assertion about the importance of the topic. Rather 
it is about a question of project management for this nascent group.

Anyone who disagrees with that assessment should document the claimed mailing 
list rough consensus that demonstrates that.

My own sense of the comments about the proposed charter text is that there is a 
reasonably clear rough consensus in favor of the current, revised text.  Rough 
consensus does not require unanimity, of course.


 For reasons I have already advanced I think that XKMS should be
 addressed in a separate draft.

Obviously, to discuss the merits of particular reputation mechanisms would be 
diving into the content of that topic.  In the absence of group rough consensus 
to pursue that topic, in this venue and within the scope of the charter, then 
discussing the merits of particular reputation mechanisms is out of scope.


 Attempting to keep this work out of scope is futile. The language as
 specified is not acceptable and unless it is changed I will submit an
 alternative charter proposal to the IESG.

You are, of course, free to do that.


 - - - - 

 1. The existing DKIM specification does not provide an "interface" to a
 reputation system. Hence a working group effort to define one is entirely
 open-ended.  

 You are pre-judging this issue according to your own prejudices here. 

Actually, I am post-judging it.  My review of the mailist activity fails to 
demonstrate support for pursuing this topic, in this venue, at this time.

It appears that your assessment is different, so please document it.  (I cannot 
document the absence of discussion.  By contrast, a claim that there is group 
rough consensus in favor of something will typically produce an affirmative 
record of that support.)


 I note that in the MARID effort you argued strenuously to keep reputation
 mechanisms out of scope then introduced one to the group yourself.

There is a difference between working group effort scoping, versus the scope an 
individual chooses.  In addition, please note that I have not said that 
reputation mechanisms are not important.  In fact I have said quite the 
opposite.  The question is one of sequencing work and creating sufficient 
focus, 
to facilitate making progress.


 2. To be productive, a working group needs to have careful
 focus.

 It also needs to deliver a useful product. 

Are you saying that an IETF standard for discrete authentication mechanism is 
not useful unless there is simultaneously an IETF standard for interfacing to 
reputation and accreditation services?  I have not seen mailing list rough 
consensus in favor of that view.


 To repeat:  so far, no such constituency
 has been evident.

 That there is a constituency is very evident, the only debate here is
 over the size of the constituency.

indeed.

  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net




  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>