On Sunday, April 20, 2014 10:08:07 Dave Crocker wrote: > On 4/14/2014 8:28 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > If that's true, it's my impression it's true because the DMARC proponents > > insisted any possible working group charter preclude meaningful changes to > > the base specification because the work was already done. > > That statement is incorrect. > > What we pressed for was to get community rough consensus on the kinds of > technical work that needed to be done to the -base (core) specification, > /before/ chartering the effort. > > This was explicitly to avoid the trap of declaring the existing spec > unstable -- and that's what starting an open-ended development effort > automatically does -- when there was no demonstrated need to do that. > > In spite of repeated efforts -- in at least two venues -- to get folks > to state what work they thought was needed and to get community support > for that work, no tasks were produced. > > That meant that any wg charter permitting changes to the protocol would > have been entirely without any foundation based on need. > > In fact, it would have a foundation of NON-need. Right. The alternate defense against a WG charter that allowed for anything more than wordsmithing was to insist that proponents of a working group go do the work of a working group to evaluate the protocol and figure out if it needed any changes before such a working group would be chartered. That didn't make any more sense. Scott K