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

SM <sm@resistor.net> Tue, 02 April 2013 03:12 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.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 7322F21E814A for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 20:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 pvpRmBmyzp1Z for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 20:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD1521E8140 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 20:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r3239LHS027991; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 20:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1364872167; bh=T1S/+6aW5G71aYpuQe+0tL50deVEssPoej4uK0RRvBI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=o1phm+neLhdS5whfLhVlLO7atQi9tp06UYZCGDI3Ra7m0TvF3Uk5xvoNVBCWn4Mdn 9PfnmYMPNhDi+87TjzIVOmBTsuTO5WiekIxG5cisHP1/5+Ej2O7jgmhfBuBE3fdGZ3 z7kcGuEMAFbQQJPS2z1pP724xTYK2gmJ8iUHKL7s=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1364872167; i=@resistor.net; bh=T1S/+6aW5G71aYpuQe+0tL50deVEssPoej4uK0RRvBI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Z1xH9DOLaepCQhlaJM8h7z/XHUl17dTb5grHBn403A9dBAXuyVwWtoi8/uswM7rHK 3QV8SB6e0qmHIqJ2k63igdHTgbzsxqVbaQa64UWrlYiopS/s6fsHJvLbOk508j8Yd9 NH8dZlJwrUnt31CsGQaO5d2Ws7mtoA/dowhKReHU=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130401193117.0aba0f00@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 20:04:01 -0700
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <5159D7A4.4000701@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <CAL0qLwYc757fw_VhPMHDrgcCimNFak02brDRLAVTq+NR4w34pA@mail.gmail.com> <5159D7A4.4000701@cs.tcd.ie>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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
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 03:12:06 -0000

At 11:53 01-04-2013, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>Both of those would seem like charter-show-stoppers to me (and
>fairly reek of rubber-stamping to put it pejoratively).

Whether it is true or not the perception will be that the proposed 
working group is rubber-stamping a specification.  The wording for 
the proposed charter sounds like the IETF does not have change 
control over the specification it is publishing.  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.

It's easier to let a draft that will be used as an input document 
stand on its own merit instead of wordsmithing charter language to 
ensure a particular outcome.

Regards,
-sm