On December 24, 2022 8:22:45 PM UTC, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > >On 12/23/22 10:25 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 1:17 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: >> >> Shouldn't the problem statement explore whether there is a >> plausible tractable solution before it moves on to protocol work? >> That is, if there isn't a tractable solution the wg should go into >> hibernation again. I'm pretty sure that I brought this quite a >> while ago. Of if not the problem statement, afterward just >> evaluating for a go-no go decision before starting any work. >> >> >> A working group is implicitly allowed to admit defeat if it decides it can't >> solve the problem it thought it was supposed to solve. DBOUND comes to >> mind; it deadlocked on whether the problem was tractable, or even well >> enough understood, to advance a consensus protocol solution, and closed >> without producing anything. >> >> I don't think the charter has to say that expressly. It's part of the >> process. The charter stipulates an ordering, and I think that's sufficient. >> >I think it's worthwhile for the charter to have a step which is to determine >whether the problem is 1) tractable and 2) requires IETF to do something. If >either of those are false, the charter should say that it is completed. There >has been quite a bit of skepticism expressed (and not just by me) about both >of those points so it would be good to have a checkpoint before doing >something to do something.
+1. I think it's a mistake to assume deciding not to make protocol changes by the group is a failure. A reasoned decision that additional protocol changes would not be helpful would be a success, if that's where the facts lead us (I have opinions on this, but have reached no definitive conclusions). Scott K _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
