Let me see: 1) you don't want to read the wg mailing list
yup, because early participation on the list and in the BOFs convinced me it was not a good use of my time. Beating my head against the wall isn't my idea of fun.
2) you don't want to have issues opened up on the issue tracker
I'm quite willing to have them in the tracker. It's just that I don't see the tracker as a good way to do external review (and perhaps, a good way to bury issues that deserve wider attention)
3) you can't be bothered to write an ID when you said you were going do two years ago
Two years ago I was very ill. I make no apologies for not doing anything I might have promised to do during that time.
4) we're approaching last call, and I'm going to assume you think you're entitled to have us stop and wait until you do write something up
If DKIM thinks its approaching last call it's even more deluded than I thought. But don't try to use my pending draft as an excuse for delay.
5) in mean time, we're just going to have to take your word about the weapons of mass destruction^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H problems with DKIM.
You don't have to take my word for anything. If you get my draft before last call, you're free to consider it or not as you choose. If not, I'll submit my draft as last call comments and IESG will consider it as they choose.
Frankly I'm fed up with your trying to make this a personal issue.
Is this your idea of "adult supervision" and "pipelining" that should be emulated for and wide across IETF working groups?
Nope. But in the absence of a process that requires early external review, it's the best way I know to try to get broken WG output fixed.
Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf