Folks,

I think the chairs already said that if there's work to be
done they're up for this wg continuing. I think that is
entirely the right position to take.

The chairs had earlier said that if the chartered work items
were completed then shutting down would be the plan. And that
is a good plan in general, though there's of course room for
what can be quite subtle differences in reasonable opinions.
And if more credible work turns up with more credible folks
willing to do that, then continuing is the clear thing to do,
with re-chartering as needed. (And re-chartering is not at all
a hard thing, whoever said it is hard... is plain wrong.)

What I don't myself see any room for, or have any time for,
is the kind of hyperbole below - a phrase like "pervasive
bureaucracy" is IMO an entirely undeserved and unjustified
slur presumably aimed at the WG chairs and is no form of
rational or informed criticism.

And with that, I hope participants here move their attention
back to improving how public keys get distributed.

Thanks,
S.

On 06/02/16 22:55, John Gilmore wrote:
>>> Yeah, let's not have the designers talking with the deployers.  That can
>>> lead to interoperability and harmony, which IETF is dead set against.
>>
>> Well, no.  This is an artifact of how the IETF works.  
> 
> You mean, how the IETF fails.
> 
>> I think on balance the decision to terminate working groups
>> as soon as they complete their charter work has led to
>> exactly the problems you describe, but it's really
>> bureaucratic rather than malicious.
> 
> If it's a pervasive, bureaucratic issue, then it should be fixed even
> more than if it was just based on one person's malice.
> 
> The bizarre part for me is that it's easier just to let it continue.
> So why does the bureacracy do actual work to shut it down?
> 
>       John
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dane mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
> 

_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane

Reply via email to