Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Sun, 20 April 2014 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.com>
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 A055B1A0035 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 10:15:24 -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
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 33J5hhH-jdoe for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 10:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C5DB1A0027 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 10:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC649560F7; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 13:15:18 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2014-01; t=1398014118; bh=GbE9D6F08jjU+M6j6X5+qtdljtFsm7V55/FOrhAku/4=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=JCSEP/N/381ZhX5Rrm6Ovi9WzszL2EfeiSWGSqEzflPYMs3jTDj0q6KOiJdkXOwgU 5+gjxU+qX0QW/RszDMUjzM1U4YdsojmGxjnk4Ud/uUUJeefRGSz41uSbK2fsLF5xfI Z0GfkhXMcRc372QaRyp2ve0kvBoE1afUxaoI7WSQ=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC6A2D043A5; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 13:15:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 13:15:16 -0400
Message-ID: <2438778.l2fkdhtpfX@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13 (Linux/3.13.0-24-generic; KDE/4.13.0; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <5353FEF7.2060708@bbiw.net>
References: <CF71721A.180A9%wesley.george@twcable.com> <4756885.Eo3b3po9Vj@scott-latitude-e6320> <5353FEF7.2060708@bbiw.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_HyUEKa2XCdKojhCExnFnpFJCQI
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 17:15:24 -0000

On Sunday, April 20, 2014 10:08:07 Dave Crocker wrote:
> 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.

Right.  The alternate defense against a WG charter that allowed for anything 
more than wordsmithing was to insist that proponents of a working group go do 
the work of a working group to evaluate the protocol and figure out if it 
needed any changes before such a working group would be chartered.

That didn't make any more sense.

Scott K