IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dcrup] draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage and document shepherds

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Mon, 12 June 2017 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AAD5129AB6 for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TFilmGhZQdGb for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x233.google.com (mail-vk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 689EA128C81 for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x233.google.com with SMTP id p62so54261824vkp.0 for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=77TmSPShDYid+D7muMF0p6xejobzNIuDkoXQtNTf4Rk=; b=nH+z/O1OxLPm76SiNPGSp+n4CZD7wjpeTp/NaKahQsV6WpnNj8iS/4DLs0ChCim1aK msRX8E7/bvJetqIByoO0z2gmzxrp2lCYBRslPQY/NEymA/Ofy3dmrhoJH5TucBE7isa4 9AlsrlQB3o6iIfGC3mlQRnyBMUVoIuhBpX4bndvskqosEQoGTr2q2FLr2MLFrpQSZyCs 2fN/oRrMZDGNW36ykSH47+H+dM8gS7R2buq+VP6DkOykcGzQnxAz4fxGTN3eE/432xFm OQjHtkE51ojt/w9b4EfKT3hQVGvtRmbDmm7lGRsK+nTjntFp1QGrYTTKFkiLuSDirmia F1bw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=77TmSPShDYid+D7muMF0p6xejobzNIuDkoXQtNTf4Rk=; b=FxDaKR4HiZz1gZK7PGQE3Mpcnu18qmlaHIljBPhBVdIdPg5jXbF7Uv26oYUu0K7fx4 QC34WdCUjep/43ZTNZqIAJHRq68ROvnrP/tYGmendqw/B1gTI/muFkPTgETI1Lh4gYeX 9IYQfJ2Jm6G0y8o5wSkFISMi7hQ0cHEsecUonLnTHmFBld/ZhF0aejKoZV5LzHnGpUiD ZhJ1mebVYG3CU1w7y23xIjCQjzkS8odXUDwXtXDbtx/eyvmaj0bDpreqiPgGjVRAEmjd iDGhaAzmx5fdL48Oqr7UYkpEw80NIUWBcFoBlZcvNKQfCPDmGtPipT8qZXGsH0YlxvG+ AQ6A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcD9ZKWFl3jbQ+VYh9CVBVR7VhAVAfE0prM5nNxVEnxbc1tYULo4 LHED/Q/YP4gOZLzNNHJfCiCdfPvQPI0+
X-Received: by 10.31.96.150 with SMTP id u144mr20830790vkb.124.1497301051516; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.138.3 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4379310.8G0EpGEsGj@kitterma-e6430>
References: <20170610002538.10992.qmail@ary.lan> <2034638.szbv6KSWyz@kitterma-e6430> <CAL0qLwY4yFGbBXHw=YXgLgok1uzWm4s2TQ2GSBak_cDn4KsOBA@mail.gmail.com> <4379310.8G0EpGEsGj@kitterma-e6430>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:57:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwY-y9fQpL7+23Z_XQHQwJFCvbL5EC+ADWReVONRTpCmKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Cc: dcrup@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114e24a24c2de90551c9915b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dcrup/5WSQGA0yUG3dBmJ3HgWPB0nGAsk>
Subject: Re: [Dcrup] draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage and document shepherds
X-BeenThere: dcrup@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DKIM Crypto Update <dcrup.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dcrup>, <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dcrup/>
List-Post: <mailto:dcrup@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcrup>, <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 20:57:34 -0000

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
wrote:

> > > I also really don't understand why we have a discussion about if a
> draft
> > > should be adopted before a WG adopts it if we just get to re-have the
> same
> > > discussion periodically.
> >
> > You think working groups should not be allowed to revisit their choices?
>
> You think working groups should have a bi-weekly periodic on revisiting
> choices?


<chair, though having not talked to my co-chair about this yet>

We haven't been chartered long enough for that hyperbole to have any
basis.  I believe this is only the first time such a change has been
proposed.  If this is going to be the discussion any time someone hints at
revisiting a choice we've made about a document, this working group is
going to take a really long time to finish.

Of course choices can be revisited, but if decisions aren't at all
> sticky, then there's no way to make progress.
>

To be sure, once consensus is reached on something, anyone who wants to
change it has the burden to justify the change by doing the work to shift
consensus.  As a bonus, the weight of that burden generally gets heavier
the more time passes.

But that's as "sticky" as it gets.  The conversation is allowed to happen,
and attempts to stifle it are not appropriate.

</chair>

-MSK

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status