Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified Mail (dkim)

[Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>]

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.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf