ietf-mailsig
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: QUERY: Relationshipt to other IETF work

2005-07-26 09:35:36

Question:
 
Should the MASS group consider the relationship of DKIM to other IETF
work, completed or ongoing?
    Yes / No
 
Should the MASS group consider the relationship of DKIM to other
standards bodies such as the W3C?
    Yes / No
 
It is axiomatic that IETF WGs do not operate in a vacuum. It is always
necessary to consider the relationship to other IETF work, at a high level at
least. This one's right up there with motherhood and apple pie. And WGs that
fail to this so can have a VERY rough time at IETF last call, and have on
occasions been sent back to the drawing board.

So the answer to the first question is "of course". But the need to consider
work in other parts of the IETF is rarely spelled out explicitly in the
charter. The cases where I'm aware of it being done have been situations where
there was concern that the work the group was doing would violate some
principle the IETF regards as fundamental, like having congestion control in
the right places, or sufficient security, or whatever. The charters of the
LEMONADE, GEOPRIV, and OPES WGs all had such language added due to such
concerns.

Whether or not W3C work enjoys the same status is an interesting question. I
don't think it does, if only because most IETFers aren't all tha familiar with
the entire range of W3C activities.

I note, however, that even in cases where a WG charter said something along the
lines of "you must take this other work into account", there have been cases
where the WG concluded that the other work was irrelevant and didn't use or
link to any of it.

What this means is that having "must consider" language in the charter is
neither necessary nor sufficient.

                                Ned


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