> > 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. As I said, apparently you think that an artist is the best judge of the relevance of his own work. I find this preposterous. > > 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. One reason that it's difficult to charter and complete WGs might be that WGs have demonstrated a huge potential to do more harm than good. > 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. True, the spam area is more difficult than most. But that ought to compel us to rely even more heavily on engineering disciplines, rather than to invest a huge amount of effort in a dubious direction out of a naive belief that doing something, anything at all, is better than doing nothing. Keth _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf