Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified Mail (dkim)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> > As I argued on the DKIM working group list, I think this text is a bad
> > idea. Part of IETF having change control of a specification is having
> > the ability to make changes, and the bar of "necessary to the success of
> > the specification" is way too high for that. Note that I'm not
> > suggesting that the WG shouldn't consider compatibility, merely that it
> > shouldn't be effectively prohibited by charter from making incompatible
> > improvements.
> 
> I hear you, Eric, and, yes, we've all discussed this at length before.
> There are people with opinions at both extremes on this (from "we must
> leave that paragraph unchanged" to "we must remove that paragraph
> completely").  For my part, as the current editor of the charter, I'm
> happy with a change in the text if we can get consensus on some text
> that will make both sides at least somewhat happy (or perhaps I should
> say "somewhat less unhappy"). 

Consensus on the charter would of course be a good thing, but it's not a
necessary condition.  The job of the charter is to appropriately direct
and focus the group's work, not to make everyone happy.  

Also, the WG may draft a charter, but the charter isn't something that
has to be settled on my the WG.

Keith

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]