[Ietf-dkim] Re: Fwd: WG Action: Formed Mail Maintenance (mailmaint) / Commitment
--On Friday, May 31, 2024 14:06 + lloyd.wood=40yahoo.co...@dmarc.ietf.org wrote: > Am I the only one who remembers massive public corporate > commitments to ATM and B-ISDN in the 1990s? > > But then the CCiTT and ITU-T were already heavily invested. The > IETF has never had the same sway. Lloyd, I do. I also remember massive public commitments to OSI as a principle and various elements (standards and Recommendations) of it a decade (or more) earlier.But there were at least two (additional) differences from the present situation and considerations about it. (1) By the time those commitments (and press releases) were made, there were general claims that the there were finished specifications. Whether those making them thought they were true was another matter: I remember conversations with a few people who were involved with the public announcements but who privately expressed doubts as to whether the specs were really ready and workable. Having versions of some of those specs that were widely hyped and endorsed only to be replaced by partially incompatible versions a few years later when the early versions turned out to be impractical. But, in each of those cases, there were specs. They might have turned out later to be incomplete or unworkable, but there were specs. I think part of the concern here -- which I am not nearly as concerned about as some others have been-- is that a significant public commitment was required before the work had actually started. In any event, I believe that either of the two alternate phrasings Murray suggested yesterday eliminate whatever problem might exist. best, john > On Monday, May 20, 2024, 12:23, Dave Crocker > 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. > Also, I believe, the IETF has wisely never tried to impose this > burden. > 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. > > Because that is the practical effect of what's in the charter. > > 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
[Ietf-dkim] Re: Fwd: WG Action: Formed Mail Maintenance (mailmaint) / Commitment
Am I the only one who remembers massive public corporate commitments to ATM and B-ISDN in the 1990s? But then the CCiTT and ITU-T were already heavily invested. The IETF has never had the same sway. Lloyd woodlloyd.w...@yahoo.co.uk I think 4G/5G/6G required a lot of public commitment too. On Monday, May 20, 2024, 12:23, Dave Crocker 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. Also, I believe, the IETF has wisely never tried to impose this burden. 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. Because that is the practical effect of what's in the charter. 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
[Ietf-dkim] Re: Fwd: WG Action: Formed Mail Maintenance (mailmaint) / Commitment
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 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
[Ietf-dkim] Re: Fwd: WG Action: Formed Mail Maintenance (mailmaint) / Commitment
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
[Ietf-dkim] Re: Fwd: WG Action: Formed Mail Maintenance (mailmaint) / Commitment
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 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
[Ietf-dkim] Re: Fwd: WG Action: Formed Mail Maintenance (mailmaint) / Commitment
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. Also, I believe, the IETF has wisely never tried to impose this burden. 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. Because that is the practical effect of what's in the charter. 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
