John,
Dave, I'm sorry, but some of the assertions that have been made
about what "protecting existing implementations" means have been
indistinguishable to me from "no real changes permitted". It
Please provide quotes, and please reconcile your assessment with the
list of "real changes" already made or agreed to.
My impression is that it is exactly that set of assertions, and
the associated implication that some process outside the normal
give and take of WG interactions will be used to determine which
changes are acceptable and which ones are not, are exactly what
has drawn those of us who have no DKIM-specific reservations
into this discussion.
Wow.
I have no idea what you are talking about or what you are basing it on.
If that interpretation was not what was intended, I would have
expected Tony Hanson's suggestion about reuse of the XMPP
language to be welcomed, not because of pressure from on high,
Apparently you expect the extensive, open group consensus process that
was pursued TWICE on this matter to have no import, but the last-minute,
vague whim of a few posters instead should hold sway.
Gosh, yes. You are right. It is entirely unreasonable to object to the
change here.
I saw it as a
helpful and constructive suggestion, coming from a respected
member of the community, to get things unstuck in a way for
which we already had established precedent.
Helpfulness requires that a problem exist. It didn't.
When the purported helpfulness is in response to an artificial problem
created by the purported helper, things look a lot more like Munchausen
by Proxy.
You apparently see
all of the objections and reservations that have arisen to the
language of the proposed charter as coming from people who
raised the issues during the earlier, BOF and other pre-charter,
discussions, lost, and are now trying to raise them again.
You must be basing that assessment on some bit of conjuring that has
nothing to do with what I have actually said, since you are quite simply
wrong.
precisely because
of the language about existing implementations, who have not
previously been substantively involved with DKIM and who,
instead, represent some small groundswell of community
resistance to a WG that is thus constrained without any clear
understanding of who gets to interpret the rules.
Groundswell? Again, wow.
John, have you bothered to count just how few people are unhappy with
the existing language? And please distinguish "unhappy" from "willing
to go along with a change in order to get the charter approved". Have
you bothered to compare your purported groundswell with the number of
participants who contributed to developing the existing text?
And, yes, it is worth noting that two of the active objectors are IETF
management folks, conducting a sour-grapes campaign, since they failed
to gain support during the open charter development discussions. Their
efforts are all the more intriguing given that neither of them has ever
cited a specific working group task that is likely to be needed but
would be prevented.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf