Before diving into this thread, I think it's important to underscore that we're not taking anything away here. None of the previously available paths (ISE, AD sponsorship, DISPATCH handling, new WG, any I've forgotten) are suddenly unavailable as a result of chartering this working group. The only constraint being established is: If you want this particular working group to process your work, there's a specific minimum you need to meet.
On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 7:22 PM Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: > On 5/10/2024 2:33 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On 5/10/2024 10:54 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > * Prior to accepting any Standards Track document for development, there > must > be a commitment to implement the resulting proposed standard from at least > two independent parties, as recorded on a related IETF mailing list. > > Just realized this concern did not get attention: > > Simply put this is a thoroughly unreasonable burden. > > Companies don't work that way. > > Companies do not make public, future commitments for implementing > standards. And when there are attempts to get them to, they waffle and > evade. > Companies aren't the only participants here. The vast majority of proposals I've worked on have been instigated by the community, not by a company. Again, if the goal is to limit this working group to only take on > specifications that are already in use, then just say that. It's simpler, > clearer, more direct and, frankly, more pragmatic. > That's not the goal. The goal is to limit this specific path to publication by strongly preferring things that either already interoperate, or are likely to interoperate after publication, because someone (well, 2+ someones) actually tried it. > Because that is the practical effect of what's in the charter. > I don't think it goes that far. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
