On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 3:22 AM Douglas Foster < dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Because I want this document to succeed and actually reduce email-borne > attacks. > I believe we're all wearing the same team jersey here. Please let's try to keep that in mind. > Because stifling of discussion does not lead to consensus. It does, > however, drag out the process. For those who do not want this process to > succeed, accumulated delay may be almost as good as a win. > Please don't conflate being challenged on your assertions with an attempt to silence you. If you make a claim and someone challenges it (as I have done, most commonly because I simply don't understand the claim you're making), then the document will be stronger either because your assertion was correct and you've successfully swung consensus to your position, or because your position is untenable and we decided, as a group all wearing the same jersey, to omit it from the final product because it wasn't a well supported position. Because I don't know your agenda. I am here to voice the evaluator > perspective. What interest group do you represent? > I bristle at this sort of approach. If we're all playing closely held poker hands here, rather than coming with an intent to collaborate openly, then things are in pretty bad shape. As a participant, my "agenda" is to drive DMARC toward something that's as close to universally positive as is practicable. I don't represent my employer or any particular constituency other than, I suppose, my own use of DMARC and perhaps the IETF itself which suffered substantial negative impacts when DMARC was first deployed into the wild in a substantial way. > Because a good security policy does not defend against what has happened, > it defends against what could happen. > I would claim it takes both as input. > Because a new idea like Tree Walk does not get adopted unless people > believe the pain of transition is less than the benefit, so it needs to be > "sold". Currently, the tree walk risk seems greater than the PSL risk, > and you don't know how to sell past that objection. Muzzling me will not > cause millions of system administrators to do something stupid simply > because you put it into print. > I fail to see how asking you for supporting evidence of your claims -- which, to me, is a perfectly reasonable aspect of debate -- constitutes "muzzling". -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
