On 3/24/23 9:10 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
On 25 Mar 2023, at 8:57, Michael Thomas wrote:
Somebody brought up that this could turn into a research project. Frankly I
think that is highly likely the case and is why rechartering was so
problematic. Since M3AAWG can't figure it out with lots of inside the industry
information, what makes anybody think the wider community would have better
insight which is not speculative because it has been tested and known to work?
It speaks volumes that they didn't have a solution in mind and bring it to IETF
to vet in the wider community. That sure sounds like a research project to me.
It may indeed be a research project, but I’d rather see that happen in IETF or
some similarly open venue rather than to have it happen in a closed forum like
M3AAWG, which brings the risk that the proposed solution will meet the needs of
only the large domains that are M3AAWG members, and not the small ones that
aren’t.
The chair is now unilaterally making it clear that nobody is allowed to
question the scope of non-working group drafts beyond wordsmithing, IETF
process be damned. Consensus calls are not needed, apparently.
"Politely", indeed.
I would have rather they actually had a proposal in hand so we could
actually know what their agenda was. If it were on the strength of the
current set of proposals, this wg should have never been rechartered
because none of them work.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
Ietf-dkim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
