On 6/8/2014 5:40 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, June 08, 2014 08:50 +0200 Dave Crocker
<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
That's because Hector is already active in the IETF's DMARC
discussion list, which was an addressee of your note, as it is
of this one...
And, because I'm still confused about change control and
decision processes (see below), I deliberately asked about
dmarc.org, not about the IETF's DMARC discussion list.
Same answer about that list. He's active there, too. It's an open list.
I asked about voluntary handoff of change control;
You did? I can't seem to find a recent message from you with either the
word voluntary or handoff. Which message are you referring to?
I hope
we are not heading into another round in which the IETF is asked
to adopt another technology and standardize it but told that it
can't make substantive changes in that technology because it has
already been discussed, adopted, and deployed elsewhere but that
possibility is precisely why the question of change control is
relevant.
You make it sound as if the IETF hasn't previously taken in protocols
that already had a significant installed base, with the proviso that it
protect it.
You also make it seem that there was work known to be needed on the base
protocol, when in fact there wasn't, after multiple queries in multiple
venues.
I know that requiring a working group to protect and installed base is
pretty outlandish and gets in the way of engineering idealism, but
really...
And given your deep concern about this current situation, please do
indicate what actual protocol work you feel is needed. It will useful
input to a possible charter.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net