On 12/25/22 7:55 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Sun, Dec 25, 2022 at 6:31 AM Barry Leiba <[email protected]>
wrote:
I agree with Mike and Scott on the point that it’s worth
explicitly allowing the result to be a “can’t do it” publication.
Implicit “couldn’t do it” is fine in most cases, but here we might
say something like, “If the working group decides that none of the
proposed approaches will work acceptably well and is unable to
find an acceptable alternative, it may instead publish a report
describing the problem and summarizing the reasons that proposed
approaches are not acceptable.” Making that explicit will avoid
arguments about whether such a document is within the charter scope.
Done, and thanks for that text.
One nit, Barry's text should be above the proposals not below. It makes
it look like those are the only proposals on the table which I'm nearly
certain is not your intent.
One other thing though, should there be some bounds on what appears to
be the possibility of writing a BCP like document? I mean, I can think
of some things that could help mitigate this but they are pretty wonky
and definitely untested. Do we actually have that operational experience
to recommend anything?
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
