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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 16 April 2013 15:37 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 1FA2921F9784 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:37:12 -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=[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 YxvVUw21l6AF for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79A1721F9776 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:37:11 -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 r3GFbAZY031568 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:37:11 -0700
Message-ID: <516D7026.6040409@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:37:10 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
References: <CAL0qLwbcH-yOj0MxfGghQZPwGMt5mRBY5U5zBxdXc1oX6SogHA@mail.gmail.com> <8990489.xAljaCmULD@scott-latitude-e6320> <516CC734.6050303@dcrocker.net> <15015065.dv5A4A6JuL@scott-latitude-e6320>
In-Reply-To: <15015065.dv5A4A6JuL@scott-latitude-e6320>
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]); Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised 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, 16 Apr 2013 15:37:12 -0000

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.

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net