On 3/27/23 8:46 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On March 27, 2023 3:10:40 PM UTC, Laura Atkins <la...@wordtothewise.com> wrote:
It seems to me a history of what did work / didn’t will go into document 4 or
the reasoning for document 3. My current preference is for the discussion to
not be in the problem statement. My reasoning is that there will be discussion
about what didn’t work and why it didn’t work. I expect that there will be
quite a bit of back and forth to capture the details of why something didn’t
work - including the adaptations that the attackers made to the changes. This,
to my mind, is the job of the working group: to look at the current status,
discuss where the holes are and if they are protocol holes or if they are best
practice / implementation holes.
On a more practical point, we have a month to finalize the problem statement.
No one has proposed language to include in the problem statement about what has
worked and what hasn’t worked. Given the current state of the group, I simply
don’t think we have the time to put this into the problem statement and get it
out in time.
I do think we have the time and space to discuss techniques after the problem
statement is done and include it in one of the WG output documents.
So far, unless I was napping when it happened, we don't have a working group
draft of the problem statement.
Exactly. It's rather disingenuous to require people to propose text to a
non-working group document especially since we don't know what is going
to be in a next version since it doesn't have to track the consensus of
the working group.
Also: it's disingenuous to demand text for something that the scope has
not even been established. It also assumes that we know the answers
which we don't. My post was trying to get some of those answers but it
wasn't enough, and may well have missed many pertinent things since I'm
not an industry insider. The intent of my questions was start an inquiry
into that state that could be used as input.
Lastly: cutting off debate because of time is bogus. Murray already said
that the milestone dates were fairly arbitrary. Using them as a tool to
get the chair's preferred result is... disingenuous.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
Ietf-dkim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
