Return-Path: 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 32887128B51 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 14:27:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kitterman.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 i5bTkzJRl6Es for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 14:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [IPv6:2607:f0d0:3001:aa::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 487BA128990 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 14:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kitterma-e6430.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE187C403A4 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 16:27:37 -0500 (CDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=201409; t=1497302857; bh=+2V41wZeB4BpzmBo1NwqXxxeVffXsXGW5TxT3uFeZ/s=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=LeTNqn0D8ctlIoc9C0fEtbJnPXslNCJfIbalwg3CyFr83Gjiod0fbqD85z9alKBVo 1gKb5EzAJUmRygHarWDBAGKAkUYhQbgHDe2kAyOaRAbZhJajMUx/pb6NL2HvGYFU03 VwS/5P8PXpi2uAj9VGKTM44gP3m6XI7DlAAsytGo= From: Scott Kitterman To: dcrup@ietf.org Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 17:27:37 -0400 Message-ID: <1963682.inTv7VmKVJ@kitterma-e6430> User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-119-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <20170610002538.10992.qmail@ary.lan> <4379310.8G0EpGEsGj@kitterma-e6430> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Archived-At: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 21:27:42 -0000 On Monday, June 12, 2017 01:57:30 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Scott Kitterman > > 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? > > > > 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. > > OK. Fair enough. I know I get grumpy sometimes. I also get over it. Moving on ... Scott K