> but rather, how to make better use of its time by producing a > specification that was more relevant. ... > Apparently you think that an artist is the best judge of the relevance > of his own work. I find the assumption that external reviewers are better able to score a project's "relevance", whatever that is, rather than the people who are doing it and plan to use it, truly breathtaking. > - partly because it's consuming energy from those who would work on more > useful goals if they were chartered, partly because of the need for > damage control, This must be a different group of people from the ones who I find on the DKIM list. If we wanted to work on something else, we would be doing so, and although I may overrate our collective wisdom, I don't think we're all working on DKIM purely because we are too dim to imagine anything else. > and partly because of the widespread assumption that since IETF has > chartered DKIM that DKIM is "the" solution that will be promoted by > IETF. Seems to me that if it weren't so difficult to charter and complete WGs, there would be more of them, and people would be less likely to overestimate the importance of one or another of them. But I wouldn't generalize too much about DKIM, or MARID, or ASRG, because people have been looking for a magic spam bullet for 10 years and nothing we tell them is going to stop that. Regards, John Levine, johnl@xxxxxxxx, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "I shook hands with Senators Dole and Inouye," said Tom, disarmingly. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf