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

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Thu, 18 April 2013 18:54 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 443F121F90F6 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:54:03 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 oNjW1xFRu+Mo for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA30521F911C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D585020E40D4; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:53:54 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1366311234; bh=Cso/hprlh2OWczO4YeG8NHbKl7ssgeIGNKmIjOocCas=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=cdsHfaqzXVYEL3xvpPR2R578zTzMV6gPr31knPbn/q7t4YUsDjBYkZionh1eQHtc/ qpLyuKNzdPGziozP5M0DvWzInclNpTw5AAhNRFno4RXlh04yzghmEXrWEFUteUCj/X QmVkjuPfO2P2Dqwo8Brv6zjvA5J+gnnIXkfTX8OM=
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 B8E9620E4090; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:53:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:53:53 -0400
Message-ID: <4299196.YodGhlyJ6a@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.5.0-27-generic; KDE/4.9.5; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <51701B63.1080204@dcrocker.net>
References: <CAL0qLwbcH-yOj0MxfGghQZPwGMt5mRBY5U5zBxdXc1oX6SogHA@mail.gmail.com> <29070418.Ips48RWf4b@scott-latitude-e6320> <51701B63.1080204@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: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:54:03 -0000

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?

Scott K