Re: MARID to close

In <p06110403bd7757e7032a@[129.46.227.161]> Ted Hardie <[email protected]> writes:

> After an assessment of the current state of the MARID working group,
> its charter, and its milestones, the working group chairs and Area
> Advisor have concluded that the MARID working group should be
> terminated.

*heavy sigh*

I think this is a mistake.


I agree that this is currently no consensus, but I do not think that a
rough consensus is out of reach.

I think there are several things that could be done to bring
consensus.


First off, IPR issues can not be ignored.  This was a recognized
problem since before the interim meeting and was discussed at that
meeting.  The failure of the AD and co-chairs to make sure that these
problems were resolved many months ago is an astounding failure.  I
personally feel that Ted Hardie (AD) is very much responsible for this
failure as Ted actively tried to sweep this problem under the rug
instead of solve it.


Secondly, the co-chairs/AD allowed this working group to try and
create a standard, instead of standardizing existing practices.  It is
far easier to reach a rough consensus on what people *ARE* doing that
what people *SHOULD BE* doing.  Even if you don't like what people are
doing, it is very useful to give clear descriptions of what is being
done.


Thirdly, the co-chairs/AD only allowed one proposal to advance.  They
put all the eggs in one basket and now that basket is smashed.  This
has caused people to fight against each other in order to get that one
spot for advancement.  For the 2822.From: identity, only the patent
encumbered PRA was considered, greatly increasing the problems of
licensing.  For the 2821.HELO identity, it was CSV only, instead of
both CSV and SPF-classic's HELO checking.  For the 2821.MAILFROM
identity, *nothing* was advanced, even though it is what a majority of
the input documents dealt with and what a vast majority of the
deployed code uses.



>                                The working group chairs and Area
> Advisor are agreed that the working group has no immediate prospect of
> achieving its primary milestone:
>
> Aug 04   Submit working group document on MTA Authorization Record in DNS to PS

Actually, the marid-protocol I-D seems to have a rough consensus to
me.  This *is* an MTA Authorization Record in DNS.  


> Rather than spin in place, the working group chairs and Area Advisor
> believe that the best way forward is experimentation with multiple
> proposals and a subsequent review of deployment experience.

This is what should have been done all along.


> Concluding a group without it having achieved its goals is never a
> pleasant prospect, and it is always tempting to believe that just a
> small amount of additional time and energy will cause consensus to
> emerge.  After careful consideration, however, the working group
> chairs and area advisor have concluded that such energy would be
> better spent on gathering deployment experience.

I do not believe that just a small amount of additional time and
energy will lead to consensus.  I do believe that a change of tactics
by the co-chars and AD would.  I believe that this has been obvious
since the first month or two of this working group.


-wayne