[ietf-dkim] Moving to consensus on draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata
ietf-dkim at kitterman.com
Fri Mar 20 14:41:11 PDT 2009
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:42:30 -0400 Barry Leiba <barryleiba at computer.org> wrote:
>> Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>>>> Based on Pasi's comments, I had thought we were going the RFC route.
>>> Well, he has a preference for /only/ going that route, but he can't
>>> actually veto our issuing the Errata under the Errata mechanism. Anyone can
>>> post anything they want under the Errata mechanism. Some pretty silly stuff
>>> has gotten posted, over the years.
>> I believe that what Dave is suggesting is an end run around the IESG.
>> In which case, I suggest that the working group insist on s/our/my/g;
>> above so that it has similar status.
>Mike, I take what you're saying to mean that you don't think the
>working group is behind "an end run around the IESG", and that the
>errata should not be saying that it is.
>What path we take to publish the errata beyond the ID that it is now,
>and whether the WG is behind publishing it without Pasi's (or the
>IESG's) approval, are things we'll be discussing in San Francisco and
>on the mailing list. I hope that when we leave SF we'll have most of
>the answer to these, which answer we'll confirm on the mailing list.
>I think we need the high-bandwidth discussion, with Pasi in the room
>and responding, to get this point resolved in a way that doesn't leave
>everyone waving scimitars at everyone else. We need to be discussing
>things productively as we go into final processing of ADSP and into
>4871bis and Draft Standard consideration. (I'm going to try to get a
>conference call set up and use Skype and a microphone to allow remote
>participants to talk. I know we've failed at that before, but I want
>to try again.)
>So while I'm on the cooperation and productivity bit....
>To everyone: Please say what you mean calmly and clearly, so there's
>less chance of misunderstanding or the taking of offense where none
>was meant. And please don't mean offense, either, of course. "Digs",
>snarkiness, and passive-aggressiveness won't keep us moving forward.
Then in the spirit of plain speaking:
I do think that the current draft attempts to alter IETF consensus via the erata process in a way that is inappropriate.
While I think that Mike's objection was formulated in a way that unfortunately strucutred around personality, I agree that the content to which he was referring should be dropped from an eratum and addressed when the RFC is revised.
More information about the ietf-dkim