On Feb 23, 2009, at 10:12 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: > Stephen Farrell wrote: >> So I think this thread seems to have descended into the fairly >> pointless and unproductive category. Maybe let's leave it there >> while Barry and I tot up the responses to the concensus call and >> see what we (as chairs) make of that. >> >> In particular: >> >> Michael Thomas wrote: >> >>> Dave CROCKER wrote: >>> >>>> A number of the latest set of posts indicate that some folks >>>> haven't read RFCX 4871, and I don't mean "carefully". It almost >>>> looks as if they haven't read it at all. Worse, the point that >>>> is constantly being ignored was proffered quite clearly in the >>>> Errata draft. So it appears they haven't read that document >>>> either. >> >> Dave - you know that a lot of the folks that disagree with you here >> have read and contributed substantially to 4871. Saying otherwise >> isn't helpful. >> >> >>> ::snort:: >> ... >> >>> This is rich. >> >> Mike - please take a deep breath before hitting "send." Just being >> annoyed on the list is also not at all helpful. There are clearly a >> bunch of folks who have contributed to 4871 that do agree with the >> approach Dave is espousing here so just labelling that revisionism >> only serves to aggravate and won't get us closer to resolving the >> issue. > > They may agree with Dave, but that does not alter the fact that what > Dave is saying does not match the history or the intent of the > document. I'll add that it is Dave who is using history here to prop > up his argument. That is all the more problematic when it simply > isn't the case. > > In any case, I'd like to understand the process by which a > substantial change in semantics is allowed under the rubric of > "errata". IIRC, errata did not even exist until relatively recently, > so any other time this would have required that the document be > recycled. To my mind, this looks a lot like the overall IETF process > is being short circuited in a last-man-standing kind of way. Errata > should not be a vehicle to fly under the radar with fundamental > semantic changes. The "primary output" errata clearly qualifies.
Mike is right and has a right to be angry. Dave's new direction for DKIM should require rechartering of the DKIM WG since offering information unrelated to other header field content was never the asserted or chartered goal of DKIM. -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
