On March 25, 2023 3:13:11 PM UTC, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > >On 3/24/23 9:10 PM, Jim Fenton wrote: >> On 25 Mar 2023, at 8:57, Michael Thomas wrote: >> >>> Somebody brought up that this could turn into a research project. Frankly I >>> think that is highly likely the case and is why rechartering was so >>> problematic. Since M3AAWG can't figure it out with lots of inside the >>> industry information, what makes anybody think the wider community would >>> have better insight which is not speculative because it has been tested and >>> known to work? It speaks volumes that they didn't have a solution in mind >>> and bring it to IETF to vet in the wider community. That sure sounds like a >>> research project to me. >> It may indeed be a research project, but I’d rather see that happen in IETF >> or some similarly open venue rather than to have it happen in a closed forum >> like M3AAWG, which brings the risk that the proposed solution will meet the >> needs of only the large domains that are M3AAWG members, and not the small >> ones that aren’t. > >The chair is now unilaterally making it clear that nobody is allowed to >question the scope of non-working group drafts beyond wordsmithing, IETF >process be damned. Consensus calls are not needed, apparently. "Politely", >indeed. > >I would have rather they actually had a proposal in hand so we could actually >know what their agenda was. If it were on the strength of the current set of >proposals, this wg should have never been rechartered because none of them >work.
So far, I don't think anyone has any better ideas, which is why it was important that a non-protocol result be in scope for the WG. Scott K _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
