Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory: -1
Mike Barry Leiba wrote: > The chairs are happy with how this discussion has been going so far, > except that we remind people that discussion of any details of > iSchedule or any other protocol that might cite DKIM is entirely out > of scope -- we need to accept that people want to use parts of the > DKIM mechanism, and not, at this point, criticise their design. > > We'll let the discussion go through the end of next week -- let's say, > through the end of the day on Thursday, 20 Jan -- and then we'll make > a consensus call. Between now and then, please continue to discuss > specifically the idea of whether the right answer for the overall good > of the DKIM specification is to make the proposed split now, or not > to. And at some point between now and then, please make it clear > where you stand on the question, so we can fairly judge consensus. > > We also thought that the outline of the proposed split would be enough > to work with, but there've been a lot of questions of the details. We > understand that the editors have done a draft of the split that they > will soon be ready to post as (individual) Internet drafts, and we've > asked them to post them. When they do, please keep in mind that they > are there to answer the questions that are coming up, and NOT to has > out all the split details now. If the working group approves the > split, we can hammer out the details then. Use these drafts to see, > specifically, what's being proposed, understand that IF we agree to go > in that direction they will still be up for changes, and don't get > mired in arguing the details now. > > On a procedural note: the chairs think that it's within the charter to > decide to satisfy charter work item 1 (DKIM to Draft Standard) by > making this split, and we do not think there's a procedural issue > raised here. Should we decide NOT to make the split and to proceed to > Draft Standard with a single 4871bis document, the chairs DO think > that revisiting the question is splitting the documents later -- a > fair approach to this -- would require rechartering. > > Again, please continue the discussion of the proposed split through 20 > January, and let us know where you stand as we evaluate consensus. > > Barry, as chair > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
