[ietf-dkim] DKIM charter
dcrocker at bbiw.net
Tue Nov 15 20:32:33 PST 2005
> Yes, I appreciate that it's intentional. And indeed, communities
> very often want things to remain unchanged when they bring them
> to IETF. I'm saying that it's not appropriate to nail that down
> in the charter.
I'm sorry. I think you missed my point about the consensus on the charter
wording being the result of TWO rounds of discussion on the open,
IETF-related mailing list.
So the issue does not warrant marginalization as merely being due to the
>> Further, your objection to the current language appears to be entirely
>> theoretical, since you are not putting forward any specific work that
>> you feel is "important" but would not rise to the level of "necessary
>> for the success of the specifications".
> That's not a safe conclusion to draw. It's simply that the
> procedure question is what's appropriate during the discussion
> of the charter.
My point is that you need to justify changing the wording based on
demonstrable need (that develops consensus) rather than on abstract
principle,. Any of the possible choices for permitting or prohibiting
incompatibility might have a reasonable basis.
Since the current wording has gone through extensive discussion, the burden
of effecting change is usually on the person requesting it.
More information about the ietf-dkim