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

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Wed, 17 April 2013 01:23 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.com>
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 4971A21F9627 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 TgAguqLd2mfu for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D4F321F95F3 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0680020E40DB; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 21:23:13 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1366161793; bh=gGnMV7727/0XAnntMsQDqnRUK+0jwa9z2xS10vtulfM=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=P8JocE12i46uaNgav6Y6m/TdSYl6IIICAbVWIKHPy/KIGIaLVY09s7+mUc+ZJpCN+ mLq3RsOS/NsVuQUhPGwnmAQ5dLWU/qjkUdlrBUXyEG9K1Vb1rt6B17iZSeySaWRgp2 c5+hM036O8+DbuGuM6TObJZ+w/pi0PQADEG9Zg/o=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DDBD520E40C6; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 21:23:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 21:23:12 -0400
Message-ID: <29070418.Ips48RWf4b@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.5.0-27-generic; KDE/4.9.5; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <516D7026.6040409@dcrocker.net>
References: <CAL0qLwbcH-yOj0MxfGghQZPwGMt5mRBY5U5zBxdXc1oX6SogHA@mail.gmail.com> <15015065.dv5A4A6JuL@scott-latitude-e6320> <516D7026.6040409@dcrocker.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group charter proposal
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 01:23:14 -0000

On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 08:37:10 AM Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 4/15/2013 8:58 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Monday, April 15, 2013 08:36:20 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
> >> That's the same as saying that when one starts a negotiation, one is
> >> obligated to make a contract.
> 
> ...
> 
> > In this case it's more like announcing a lockout when the initial offer
> > from management isn't accepted without modification by the union rather
> > than determining a meeting of the minds cannot be achieved after good
> > faith negotiations.
> > 
> > 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, including clarification
> for the reasons of the charter draft(s) that have been offered.  In
> addition, please note that the counter-proposal has not justified its
> position and, in fact, has been offered with complete rigidity, up to
> today, and hasn't responded to the concerns raised with it.
> 
> 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.  The part that's 
relevant is claiming a meeting of the minds is impossible without any serious 
effort to try (that's my assessment of the public discussion on the topic).

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.

Scott K