On 9 Nov 2024, at 17:25, Pete Resnick wrote:

> On 9 Nov 2024, at 17:07, Jim Fenton wrote:
>
>> On 9 Nov 2024, at 13:16, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>
>>> On 9 Nov 2024, at 8:38, Jim Fenton wrote:
>>>
>>>> suggest that the charter acknowledge that scalability is important and 
>>>> stop there.
>>>
>>> Well, I would also like something that is clear that running code is 
>>> favored to a completely unimplemented proposal. Text welcome.
>>
>> I suggest that paragraph 5 of the draft charter be replaced with:
>>
>> It is expected that design proposals will be tested during the development 
>> of specifications. The working group will favor designs that are tested with 
>> running code and that demonstrate interoperability.
>
> How about adding, "Scalability is also an important design consideration that 
> the WG will take into account."? I agree that we ought not be excluding small 
> providers, but we also can't start adding features (or at the very least 
> required features) that only work for small providers and cannot work at 
> scale for the larger ones. As you say, no bad faith assumed, but we all know 
> of WGs that have gone off the rails with lots of interesting features that 
> work in theory.

Works for me. I meant to say something about scalability in my suggestion above 
but forgot to put that in.

-Jim

_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org

Reply via email to