RE: Sender-ID != SPF

From 3929:

   "In discussions regarding this document, several points have been
   raised about the viability of any mechanism that requires consensus
   to use an alternative to consensus-based decision making.  Some
   individuals have pointed out that groups having trouble achieving
   consensus on a technical matter may have similar problems achieving
   consensus on a procedural matter.  Others have been concerned that
   this will be used as an attempt to end-run around rough consensus.
   These are valid concerns, and they point both to the need to retain
   rough consensus as the baseline mechanism and the need to exercise
   caution when using these alternate methods.  More importantly though,
   they highlight the nature  of these alternatives.  They are primarily
   mechanisms that allow people to recognize the need for compromise in
   a new way, by backing away from entrenched technical positions and by
   putting the technical choice in the hands of the broader community.
   They highlight that the choice for each participant is now between
   achieving a result and failure.

   There is a fundamental tension between the IETF community's desire to
   get the best decision for a particular technical problem and its
   desire to get a decision that has community buy-in in the form of
   rough consensus.  These mechanisms cannot resolve that fundamental
   tension.  They may, however, provide a way forward in some situations
   that might otherwise end in a deadlock or stagnation."

	That's a power grab? Personally it seems it's only a power grab in
the case of politikers stubbornly refusing consensus for bad reasons, or
fear of people not deeply involved making an unbiased decision that can't be
blocked. I've not read many documents that were so passive in just
suggesting a solution to a problem that can *optionally* be implemented if
it helps. 
	On another note, usage of "The IETF will become irelevant if
_______" prognostication seems to be proliferating these days.


-Tom

[email protected]  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Iadonisi
> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 7:36 AM
> To: MXCOMP LIST
> Subject: Re: Sender-ID != SPF
> 
> 
> On Sun, 2004-10-31 at 07:29, James Couzens wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > There exists a very amusing /. post which had a would be chat 
> > involving client's whose names represented the various parties with 
> > vested interest in the outcome of this WG's efforts.  I'm 
> not going to 
> > post it here but its exceptionally amusing, and 
> unfortunately a very 
> > accurate representation of the events that took place here. 
>  Hopefully 
> > we won't see a repeat of this in the future.
> 
>   Unfortunately, with the apparent power-grab of RFC3929, I 
> think we're likely to see much, much worse.
>   I was skeptical of those who said that many see the IETF as 
> losing its relevance.  I fear that if RFC3929 moves beyond 
> experimental status, then that will come true very quickly, 
> if it's not already.
> 
> --
> -Paul Iadonisi
>  Senior System Administrator
>  Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist  Ever see 
> a penguin fly?  --  Try Linux.
>  GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
>