[ietf-dkim] Work group future

[Murray S. Kucherawy]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 2:19 AM
> To: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Work group future
> 
> On 03/Apr/11 18:45, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > I think when it's clear there's no more progress that can be made,
> > you close down and move on.  You can always start up a WG later
> > when there's a chance for better progress or new work to be done.
> 
> Is there a difference between the WG and the mailing list, in this
> respect?  Shutting down the mailing list implies possibly different
> members whenever a new DKIM WG will be started up.

I actually don't know.  Someone else could chime in.  I'm sure the archives are kept "forever" though.

There are other DKIM lists around that could become a new home for such conversation though.  Or you could start your own.

Also, "possibly different members" is not necessarily a bad thing.  Some fresh perspective might be quite welcome.

> > Our outstanding chartered items have been getting nowhere for
> > years.  It seems nonsensical to keep it open.
> 
> I see some agree on this point.  And yet, rechartering was discussed
> withing this WG just one year ago, and the text adjusted so as to meet
> consensus.

There's no current consensus to recharter again though.  Would you like to propose a new charter?

> Was the charter perceived as a compromise?

I didn't get that impression.

> I, for one, was not 100%
> satisfied with it, but still preferred to remain in the WG to discuss
> the parts that I was interested in.  Possibly my decision was wrong,
> because a smaller and more agile WG may have worked better.  RFC 2418
> considers closed membership for "design teams" within a WG, but I
> never actually saw that here.

I can't recall: Did you propose such a design team?

Getting a smaller, more agile WG is certainly an option.  You just need to find some like-minded people that are willing to collaborate on a charter, and then get it into the system for consideration.  The process is well-documented.

But keep in mind that R&D is not an IETF activity.  The IETF does standards.  We haven't been able to come up with a standard to do policy that is universally palatable.  It may be that more statistics gathering and research would solve this, but that hasn't happened.  Keeping a WG alive is expensive, and I daresay we're not offering up much bang for the buck these days (other than perhaps entertainment value to outsiders).

Essentially, the R&D should be done before the IETF part of things starts up.

> Yes, the horses are out already.  However, in general, I'm very
> interested in learning why spam hasn't been stopped by the IETF, and
> this sort of WG dynamics seems to be part of the response.  (I wasn't
> in the MARID, I only read about it after the fact.)

That's a fairly grandiose expectation.  One might also wonder why law enforcement hasn't managed to stop drug abuse, cybercrime, or myriad other plagues on society.  The issue is that the infrastructure of the system allows it, and I can't even imagine a system that is problem-free given the nature of the predators and prey in these scenarios.

We just can't get the spammers to set the evil bit on their mail, alas.  It would make things so much easier.