Subject: RE: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF?

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:58:10 -0700

> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> No, Dave, you insisted on interrupting me and shouting me 
> down when I tried to raise these issues in the BOFs - doing 
> your best to prevent me from making my case.  And you're not 
> just one voice, you are one of the document authors.  
> 
> As for rough consensus, you seem to forget that there are two 
> necessary conditions for standardization - one is rough 
> consensus, the other is technical soundness.  

It is seldom the case that I agree with Dave Crocker on anything. I don't remember Dave being a nuisance at the DKIM meeting I attended, I admit I did miss one of them.

If one gets shouted down in a BOF the usual recourse is to take it to the WG mailing list or to the IETF list.

I am still waiting to see a description of the defects you believe that you have identified in either forum. I have asked you to describe them here several times, you have refused.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:17:39 -0400

> I am still waiting to see a description of the defects you believe that you have identified in either forum. I have asked you to describe them here several times, you have refused.

And I've already partially explained why I'm not doing things that
way.  But in addition to that - mailing lists discussions are much
better at elicting knee-jerk reactions than encouraging thoughtful
reflection, and this is something that needs thoughtful reflection.

Keith

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:39:10 -0700

>reflection, and this is something that needs thoughtful reflection.
Let me see:

1) you don't want to read the wg mailing list
2) you don't want to have issues opened up on the issue tracker
3) you can't be bothered to write an ID when you said you were going
    do two years ago
4) we're approaching last call, and I'm going to assume you think you're
    entitled to have us stop and wait until you do write something up
5) in mean time, we're just going to have to take your word about the
    weapons of mass destruction^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
    problems with DKIM.

Is this your idea of "adult supervision" and "pipelining" that should be
emulated for and wide across IETF working groups?

       Mike

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:43:44 -0400

> 1) you don't want to read the wg mailing list

yup, because early participation on the list and in the BOFs convinced 
me it was not a good use of my time.  Beating my head against the wall 
isn't my idea of fun.

> 2) you don't want to have issues opened up on the issue tracker

I'm quite willing to have them in the tracker.  It's just that I don't 
see the tracker as a good way to do external review (and perhaps, a good 
way to bury issues that deserve wider attention)

> 3) you can't be bothered to write an ID when you said you were going

Two years ago I was very ill.  I make no apologies for not doing 
anything I might have promised to do during that time.

>    entitled to have us stop and wait until you do write something up

If DKIM thinks its approaching last call it's even more deluded than I 
thought.  But don't try to use my pending draft as an excuse for delay.

>    weapons of mass destruction^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H

You don't have to take my word for anything.  If you get my draft before 
last call, you're free to consider it or not as you choose.  If not, 
I'll submit my draft as last call comments and IESG will consider it as 
they choose.

Frankly I'm fed up with your trying to make this a personal issue.

> emulated for and wide across IETF working groups?

Nope.  But in the absence of a process that requires early external 
review, it's the best way I know to try to get broken WG output fixed.

Keith