[ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages

[Dave Crocker]

Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Dave Crocker wrote:
>> Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>>> Would you please explain the basis for assessing that this topic got 
>>>> sufficient discussion and that there was rough consensus on it?
>>>
>>> See above "I mainly saw..."
>>
>> Qualifiers are nice, but pointing out that they were used does not 
>> provide an explanation for an assessment.
> 
> Sorry Dave, but I don't see how I can provide a better explanation
> than that. I really don't get what you find unclear there.

Suppose I asserted that the pattern of your responses to me publicly was 
mainly hostile.  You then ask me to explain the basis for that assessment and 
I respond that I said "mainly".

Would you really find my response to be an "explanation"?

I suspect not.

To explain something is to discuss and justify the underlying criteria and 
perceived facts.

The archive is a body of data.  There was an analytic process that you and 
Barry used to assess it, to come to your conclusion. Presumably that process 
had objective substance, rather than just an intuitive leap.

By my reading of that archive, discussion was quite limited, participation in 
the discussion was quite limited, and, at best, there was no strongly 
dominant(*) view.  Given that my assessment differs from yours, the question 
is what details and patterns that you saw, that justified declaring the matter 
resolved.


d/

(*) The WG Guidelines document defines rough consensus in terms of "the 
dominant view of the working group" and notes that 51% is not enough. Over the 
years, something like 2/3 is more in the ball-park of what is expected, with 
the absence of a vigorous constituency against the view.  The premise behind 
this latter barrier is that strong resistance in the working group implies 
strong resistance to adoption, later.  I realize that such pragmatics are not 
all that in vogue right now, but that's the nature of the history. I'm 
pointing it out because, indeed, my reading of real-world assessments of the 
current SSP is that there is quite strong resistance among receive-side 
participants.
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net