Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Attempted summary, SSP again

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:59:08 -0800

> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> Hi Phil,
> 
> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> > telling them that
> > their point should not be debated yet serves no useful purpose.
> 
> Except perhaps when the debate has degenerated so quickly as 
> happened in this case.

Actually the exclusion I stated was unless you are the WG-chair.

What I object to is the 'free swing at him' mode of debate where it is
argued that policy is impossible to solve but any evidence to the
contrary is argued to be out of order.

> The charter is very clear on the order of our milestones and 
> on the fact that the threats draft is a pre-requisite before 
> base or ssp, quoting the threats milestone:
> 
>    "IESG approval of this document is a prerequisite for the
>    submission of the standards-track specifications."

In the absence of specific policy proposals that part of the threats
draft is easier to write. There is a risk that good mail will be
incorrectly rejected and that bad mail will get through. If either
problem threatens to become chronic people will abandon the protocol
pretty quickly.

Might need a bit more for the draft but not much. We certainly do not
need the 'death of the net stuff'.

_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org