IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 02 April 2013 05:33 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 880C021F97B1 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 22:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gOWGVJsWBHw3 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 22:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DDAD21F984B for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 22:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.9.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r325X1r3020010 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 1 Apr 2013 22:33:03 -0700
Message-ID: <515A6D8C.7080404@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:33:00 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
References: <CAL0qLwYc757fw_VhPMHDrgcCimNFak02brDRLAVTq+NR4w34pA@mail.gmail.com> <5159D7A4.4000701@cs.tcd.ie> <6.2.5.6.2.20130401193117.0aba0f00@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130401193117.0aba0f00@resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] DMARC working group charter proposal
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 05:33:09 -0000

On 4/1/2013 8:04 PM, SM wrote:
> Such an approach has been tried with various degrees of success.  Lack
> of change control causes unhappiness; it generates more work for WG
> Chairs and increases the probability of process issues.

SM,

Please elaborate.  In particular, when has a well-constructed charter 
constraint worked poorly?

As for generating more work for the Chairs, a major selling point behind 
tight charters is to make it easier for chairs to help the working group 
distinguish between work that is in-scope and out of scope.  Again, what 
examples do you have of a well-constructed charter constraint causing 
more work for chairs?

And what process issues do you know of that happened?

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email