On 7/5/14 7:59 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
On 7/3/2014 11:04 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
"As the working group develops solutions to deal with indirect mail
flows, it will seek to maintain the end-to-end nature of existing
identifier fields in mail, in particular avoiding solutions that
require rewriting of originator fields."
It is simply important that when solutions get discussed, if a
proposal is made for one that involves rewriting originator fields,
those of us who feel that it is a show stopper need to clearly,
concisely, and professionally lay out the arguments for why doing so
is very problematic.
And there is where my concern lies.
This puts an unnecessary heavy burden on proving why...
Well, let's be clear: The current charter text says that the WG is going
to avoid such solutions. So the *initial* "burden of proof" (so to
speak) is going to be on those proposing a solution that rewrites
originator fields. It is only once they make a case that it *is*
reasonable to do such a thing, both at a technical level and as a matter
of doing something against the charter, that folks might be asked to
explain why it is still problematic in light of the new information
brought forth by the proponents.
At least that's the way I read the current charter text.
We don't need to waste time in waiting for the obviously bad thing to
go wrong before action is taken and with the IETF appeal process, its
generally too late.
Many tend to forget that the appeal process does not start with an
appeal to the IESG at Last Call or later. In fact, it doesn't start with
an "appeal" at all. If anyone disagrees with a WG decision, whether a
strictly technical objection or because the WG simply failed to properly
consider an alternative view, that should get brought to the chair
immediately. No waiting.
I am absolutely worried that indirect endorsement or redesign
considerations for rewrites...
I don't see this "indirect endorsement or redesign considerations for
rewrites" in the charter text.
So do I understand you to say that you think the text is not strong
enough?
Probably. Whats stronger than strong? Outlawed?
The current text is now in front of the IESG for internal review.
Assuming we approve it for external review on Thursday, you will see a
announcement soliciting comments. A simple comment, with specific
suggested textual changes, would be welcomed.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
