[ietf-smtp] Fwd: [Ietf-dkim] Fwd: WG Action: Formed Mail Maintenance (mailmaint)
Dave Crocker <[email protected]> Fri, 10 May 2024 14:36:45 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.smtp,gmane.ietf.emailcore |
|---|---|
| Organization | Brandenburg InternetWorking |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1120907022226009034== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------6HuSKUB4YPNDZ0NsDAf5pECQ" Content-Language: en-US This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------6HuSKUB4YPNDZ0NsDAf5pECQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Ietf-dkim] Fwd: WG Action: Formed Mail Maintenance (mailmaint) Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 14:33:06 -0700 From: Dave Crocker <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking To: Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> CC: [email protected], IETF general list <[email protected]> On 5/10/2024 10:54 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > * Prior to accepting any Standards Track document for development, > there must > be a commitment to implement the resulting proposed standard from at least > two independent parties, as recorded on a related IETF mailing list. > > * When deciding to send any Standards Track work to the IESG, there must > first be produced a report documenting at least two (preferably more) > independent implementations with at least partial interoperation based > on the > developed specification. This imposes two, formal requirements for Standards Track that are dramatically higher barriers than is typical for IETF Standards Track specification. What is the justification for this deviation from IETF norm? And, obviously, if it is reasonable here, why is is not universally reasonable, as a basic barrier for all specifications going on Standards Track? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@[email protected] -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@[email protected] --------------6HuSKUB4YPNDZ0NsDAf5pECQ Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> </head> <body> <p>FYI<br> </p> <div class="moz-forward-container"><br> <br> -------- Forwarded Message -------- <table class="moz-email-headers-table" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Subject: </th> <td>Re: [Ietf-dkim] Fwd: WG Action: Formed Mail Maintenance (mailmaint)</td> </tr> <tr> <th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Date: </th> <td>Fri, 10 May 2024 14:33:06 -0700</td> </tr> <tr> <th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">From: </th> <td>Dave Crocker <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]"><[email protected]></a></td> </tr> <tr> <th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Reply-To: </th> <td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a></td> </tr> <tr> <th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Organization: </th> <td>Brandenburg InternetWorking</td> </tr> <tr> <th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">To: </th> <td>Murray S. Kucherawy <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]"><[email protected]></a></td> </tr> <tr> <th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">CC: </th> <td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>, IETF general list <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]"><[email protected]></a></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <br> <br> On 5/10/2024 10:54 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite">* Prior to accepting any Standards Track document for development, there must<br> be a commitment to implement the resulting proposed standard from at least<br> two independent parties, as recorded on a related IETF mailing list.<br> <br> * When deciding to send any Standards Track work to the IESG, there must<br> first be produced a report documenting at least two (preferably more)<br> independent implementations with at least partial interoperation based on the<br> developed specification.<br> </blockquote> <br> <br> This imposes two, formal requirements for Standards Track that are dramatically higher barriers than is typical for IETF Standards Track specification.<br> <br> What is the justification for this deviation from IETF norm?<br> <br> And, obviously, if it is reasonable here, why is is not universally reasonable, as a basic barrier for all specifications going on Standards Track?<br> <br> d/<br> <br> <pre class="moz-signature">-- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mast:@[email protected]">mast:@[email protected]</a> </pre> </div> <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mast:@[email protected]">mast:@[email protected]</a></pre> </body> </html> --------------6HuSKUB4YPNDZ0NsDAf5pECQ-- --===============1120907022226009034== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KaWV0Zi1zbXRw IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdCAtLSBpZXRmLXNtdHBAaWV0Zi5vcmcKVG8gdW5zdWJzY3JpYmUgc2VuZCBh biBlbWFpbCB0byBpZXRmLXNtdHAtbGVhdmVAaWV0Zi5vcmcK --===============1120907022226009034==--