Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group charter proposal

Scott -

On 4/18/13 12:53 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, April 18, 2013 09:12:19 AM Dave Crocker wrote:
>> On 4/16/2013 6:23 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 08:37:10 AM Dave Crocker wrote:
>>>> On 4/15/2013 8:58 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>>>> 1.  How about this?
>>>>> 2.  Not quite, here are some alternatives we could discuss.
>>>>> 1.  I quit.
>>>>>
>>>>> that's hardly a negotiation.
>>>> 1. The exchange was more elaborate than that,
>> ...
>>
>>>> 2. The lockout imagine is striking and entirely inapplicable, since
>>>> there is no pre-existing relationship, nevermind an employer/employee
>>>> one.
>>> Right.  It's an analogy and like all analogy is imperfect.
>> Scott,
>>
>> An analogy is supposed to demonstrate core properties that match the
>>
>> situation.  Similarly:
>>> Also imperfect, but perhaps less orthogonal might be the analogy of the
>>> kid
>>> that shows up at the playground with a cool new toy and stomps off and
>>> goes
>>> home when the other kids won't play with the toy precisely according to
>>> his
>>> rules.
>> entirely misses the point of what is currently happening.
>>
>>
>> The current exchange has had more of the flavor of:
>>
>>     A:    How about X.
>>     B&C:  That's unacceptable, so do alternatives Y or Z.
>>     A:    Here are the reasons those alternatives don't match the
>>           current situation and here are the distinctive characteristics
>>           of the current situation.
>>     B&C:  Do Y or Z
>>     {rinse repeat}
>>     A:    OK, how about A.
>>     B&C:  Do Y or Z
>>
>> After some iterations in this model, it become clear that the
>> negotiation isn't a negotiation.
>>
>> Until you and Stephen engage in discussing the substance of the
>> responses you've been getting, there isn't a meaningful discussion
>> happening.
> OK.  It seemed to me that in your analogy is was more like A saying "How about 
> X" over and over.
>
> Since you are a part of the DMARC development community, do you have a sense 
> of if that group is willing to support a working group charter that allows for 
> technical changes to be made in the protocol in the event significant technical 
> issues are discovered?

If I'm not mistaken, I think that the proposed charter makes provision
for exactly that happening. If enough data points are gathered through
the work of the group, it can decide to re-charter and crack open the
spec itself. We'll just want to be sure that it's a data-driven decision
rather than something more theoretical.

Does that hit close to what you're looking to achieve?

- Trent

>
> Scott K
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

-- 
J. Trent Adams

Profile: http://www.mediaslate.org/jtrentadams/
LinkedIN: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jtrentadams
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jtrentadams