On 6/8/2014 5:40 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Sunday, June 08, 2014 08:50 +0200 Dave Crocker > <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> That's because Hector is already active in the IETF's DMARC >> discussion list, which was an addressee of your note, as it is >> of this one... > > And, because I'm still confused about change control and > decision processes (see below), I deliberately asked about > dmarc.org, not about the IETF's DMARC discussion list. Same answer about that list. He's active there, too. It's an open list. > I asked about voluntary handoff of change control; You did? I can't seem to find a recent message from you with either the word voluntary or handoff. Which message are you referring to? > I hope > we are not heading into another round in which the IETF is asked > to adopt another technology and standardize it but told that it > can't make substantive changes in that technology because it has > already been discussed, adopted, and deployed elsewhere but that > possibility is precisely why the question of change control is > relevant. You make it sound as if the IETF hasn't previously taken in protocols that already had a significant installed base, with the proviso that it protect it. You also make it seem that there was work known to be needed on the base protocol, when in fact there wasn't, after multiple queries in multiple venues. I know that requiring a working group to protect and installed base is pretty outlandish and gets in the way of engineering idealism, but really... And given your deep concern about this current situation, please do indicate what actual protocol work you feel is needed. It will useful input to a possible charter. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net