(subject line re-set to align with the referenced thread.)
Andrew,
Additionally, the question you put to the group titled "QUERY: Key
Server Choices" lacks the needed neutrality. It contains troubling
language like "Defining such a mechanism will take unknown resources
and time." Really? Bringing about DKIM as an RFC will also require
unknown resources and time.
Except that the current path has a timeline in the charter and a specification
to work from, along with some running code. These provide quite a bit of
guidance about likely timeliness and effort.
If the alternative also has these, please point to them. Absent them, the
effort is far more open-ended.
In terms of the "theory" of questionnaire formulation, responses vary
considerably, depending upon how concrete the implications of the alternatives
are. Often respondents feel little commitment to a response when the question
is generic; so they provide answers that may well not reflect their concerns,
were the implications more clear. As the question carries more explicit
description of impact, answers change.
I did not feel that the question about the current path needed a recitation of
its status, whereas the work and schedule impact that will come from adding
alternatives did.
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net