[ietf-dkim] DKIM charter

[Dave Crocker]

Eric,

 >>>      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.
...
>>
>> So the issue does not warrant marginalization as merely being due to
>> the original constituency.
> 
> I heard objections to this at the Paris IETF and we're in in the
> middle of a formal consensus call now and I'm objecting to the
> proposed wording at this time. I don't see a procedural problem
> with that. That's why we have consensus calls.


1. I assume the "objections to this" that you cite were to this wording of 
constraint.  Are you saying that you believe that the Paris BOF demonstrated 
a significant constituency in favor of the alternative wording that you are 
proposing?  (Sorry.  I just re-read your note and realized that you were not 
proposing alternative wording.)  Anyhow, since you cite the fact that some 
folks were unhappy, way back at the time of the Paris BOF, I assume that 
their unhappiness a) is specifically relevant to the charter change you are 
seeking, and b) that you have some data that are more recent, to counter the 
hum of support in Vancouver.

2. As I understand what took place in Vancouver, the more recent BOF had a 
nearly unanimous hum in favor of forming the working group, using the 
existing draft charter text.

3. You attributed the desire to make no changes as being "communities very 
often want things to remain unchanged when they bring them to IETF." I 
pointed out that the consensus on the current wording was more broad than 
thay original community.  Since your attribution is not supported by recent 
events, it might be worth your responding to the point rather than directing 
things over to a separate and secondary issue of procedural timing, which 
was not something I expressed any concern about.

4. Your original concern was justified entirely by "it's not appropriate to 
nail that down in the charter."  You offer no specific basis for that claim. 
  However it is worth noting that it is actually pretty typical for existing 
technology that is brought into the IETF to attend to this issue carefully 
and to specify rather conservative scope for permissible changes.  So, 
again, I suggest that the burden of making a case for alternative language 
falls on the shoulders of the personal calling for the change.  Are you sure 
you want your case to be entirely in the form of "it's not appropriate to 
nail that down in the charter"?

d/

ps.  yes, folks, i agree that i have made my point, however well or poorly, 
and that my iterating another round (after this) will not be helpful.

-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>