The reality in vast majority of companies (vendors) is that commitment to implement something or not are no longer being driven by engineers.
They are driven by marketing and product management teams who rarely attend IETFs. And even if there some commitment today tomorrow based on new field requirements it may change. With that I am really puzzled what this entire discussion is all about and how anyone (presumably chairs) are going to hold responsible person X for her or his "commitment to implement" (unless we are talking about hobby implementations in some private code base or open source. Thx, R. On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 4:59 PM Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: > On 5/21/2024 9:48 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > Before diving into this thread, I think it's important to underscore > > that we're not taking anything away here. > > The premise of that assertion is that having this working group will not > alter the decision-making by those managing the other paths. Given > human nature, that seems optimistic, at best. > > > > 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. > > And that minimum is both onerous and, as formal charter requirements, > lacking any historical precedence in the IETF. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > mast:@dcrocker@mastodon.social > >
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
