Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Sun, 20 April 2014 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 739541A0031 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 10:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 uG6PH619zxHd for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 10:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0883A1A0027 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 10:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s3KHADYH012503 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 20 Apr 2014 10:10:17 -0700
Message-ID: <5353FEF7.2060708@bbiw.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 10:08:07 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"
References: <CF71721A.180A9%wesley.george@twcable.com> <534C067D.8080506@meetinghouse.net> <CAL0qLwa5CRwxn0V=7D84KFv9K_u5W5L+PPUXc3KPkD0YHkNo1w@mail.gmail.com> <4756885.Eo3b3po9Vj@scott-latitude-e6320>
In-Reply-To: <4756885.Eo3b3po9Vj@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 [72.52.113.67]); Sun, 20 Apr 2014 10:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OemWzAtjWjeuOpPX4pL3VCiVzhw
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 17:10:26 -0000

On 4/14/2014 8:28 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> If that's true, it's my impression it's true because the DMARC proponents
> insisted any possible working group charter preclude meaningful changes to the
> base specification because the work was already done.


That statement is incorrect.

What we pressed for was to get community rough consensus on the kinds of 
technical work that needed to be done to the -base (core) specification, 
/before/ chartering the effort.

This was explicitly to avoid the trap of declaring the existing spec 
unstable -- and that's what starting an open-ended development effort 
automatically does -- when there was no demonstrated need to do that.

In spite of repeated efforts -- in at least two venues -- to get folks 
to state what work they thought was needed and to get community support 
for that work, no tasks were produced.

That meant that any wg charter permitting changes to the protocol would 
have been entirely without any foundation based on need.

In fact, it would have a foundation of NON-need.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net