On 4/1/2025 8:42 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 1 Apr 2025, at 22:30, Dave Crocker wrote:
When calling to have a wg adopt a draft, it is worth reviewing
comments on that draft beforehand
The draft version that was called for adoption is drastically
different than the draft on which you commented,
Thanks for pointing this out. Given the distractions of the the last
month -- and continuing -- I´d missed that. (In spite of making some
narrowly focused comments after it was issued.)
A casual scan of a diff seems to show 1/3 - 1/2 of the latest draft
being new.
That´s a lot of diff.
With no substantive discussion about the changes, it seems.
From what I can tell -- and absent any engagement from when I offered
review comments originally -- none of my original review comments
affected the new draft.
Besides being frustrating, it is unfortunate for the draft since, the
current draft retains simple, foundational errors that were pointed out
previous.
*Should an IETF working adopt a draft that is sufficiently revised
so as to essentially be a new document when the new draft has
received pretty much no IETF-based discussion?
*
*Should an IETF wg adopt a document that has basic factual errors?*
*Also, this document that purports to focus on motivations does not
seem to include a discussion of problems and motivations.*
For example the opening section, where one would expect a least a hint,
instead jumps to conclusions, without providing any actual background.
(And, not surprisingly, this was noted as an issue for the previous draft.)
Here is something that might facilitate making the document do what it
is claimed to do: Change the order of the major sections, so there is a
natural and typical flows.
From:
1.
Background and motivations
2.
Some properties that will be required to deliver on these goals
3.
Goals ot be addressed by DKIM2
To:
1. Background and _problems_/(with no discussion of solutions)/
2. Goals for DKIM2 (/with discussion of issues and tradoffs, but
not solutions/)
3. Some properties that will be required to deliver on these goals
(/component solution/approaches/)
and I haven't endeavored to go through point-by-point to see which
comments apply to which of the current documents. It's also not clear
to me which of your comments amount to "this will need to be
corrected" and which ones amount to "this indicates this document is
not appropriate for adoption, even as a framework that will require a
lot of corrections." It would probably be useful to identify the
latter sort (if any) in response to the call for adoption.
Your lack of clarity confuses me. I don´t recall regular reviews from
regular participants typically being expected to make prioritization
demands on the working group or the authors. And I have not been an
Area Director in maybe 30 years.
I suspect the difference in our model for this sort of thing is, you
know, having folk engage in discussion, where there is need. No idea why
there is so much resistance to that standard model.
Speaking of standard, I see that this draft is listed as intending
standards track. That´s quite unusual for a ´motivation´ document. I
am curious how conformance/interoperability will be tested?
Apologies for not responding to this semi-official response to my
unofficial review of the draft in January.
I'm not clear what the terms "semi-official" and "unofficial" mean in
this context.
I guess I should not be surprised that this mild attempt at humor fell
flat. Anyhow, I thought Allen was part of the private group that
developed the text. Or, at least, I was hoping that at least one person
from that crew would engage with having a detailed review be offered.
You might recall that the IETF has various, official reviews? And, hence
´semi-´.
I will note that Allen's was the only response to my detailed
review. And it was only to my summary comments.
On the average, that speaks poorly both for group engagement and for
advocate engagement.
I can think of other reasons why a long detailed pre-chartering review
of an early pre-chartering version of a draft might not have gotten a
great deal of response, none of them having anything to do with
participants' engagement in the work of the WG. I don't think we need
to dwell on this at the moment.
well, as long as you know of other unstated reasons, then it´s certainly
fine to ignore someone´s substantial effort to provide technical
comments in an IETF context.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @dcrocker@mastodon.social
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
