[mail-vet-discuss] Draft as of 9/4/2007
dhc at dcrocker.net
Wed Sep 5 15:03:37 PDT 2007
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> I'm talking more about reaching consensus here, and then exposing it to
> some of the communities you listed. I've already pointed ietf-dkim at
> it more than once, but I guess the next steps are MAAWG "technical" and
Sometimes the "Last Call Before Submission" label on the request improves
people's motivation to respond.
>> a) Be able to demonstrate a broad base of direct support -- is
>> there a reasonable extensive history of commentary and revision
>> involving one or more open fora with an interesting range of active
> In here yes, but this community is somewhat limited in size. That's why
> I'm interested in exposing it to a wider audience.
>> b) Be able to demonstrate a reasonable degree of implementation
>> experience and preferably also some use experience, if practical.
>> That isn't on any formal process requirement, but it makes a world of
>> difference when debating against the inevitable abstract theory
>> "criticisms" that seem to come from assorted well-intentioned, bright,
>> naive folk in positions of some leverage.
> I think I've got this covered at least via the implementations I maintain.
For the concern I'm raising, probably not. Remember that my focus is frankly
less about technical competence than on demonstrating that there is a useful
base of the community that is embracing the work. Having a variety of folks
do implementation, testing, and deployment is what serves that need.
>> It has had a thoroughly legitimate and productive development
>> history. So it's not that I am actually worried about the quality of
>> the work, or spec. It's that I think it needs at least one more
>> iteration of review by a somewhat broader audience, to gain a critical
>> mass of demonstrable support. (Unless I've missed that it's already
>> been done, and gosh, that just never happens.)
> This is what I'm hoping to do next.
More information about the mail-vet-discuss