On 3/10/23 7:54 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Friday, March 10, 2023 9:14:05 AM EST Laura Atkins wrote:
What about solutions that have been tried but have drawbacks or are
ineffective? It would be nice to know what the current baseline is.
In some respects that depends on what form the final document takes. If we
do decide that the underlying problem is something that can be addressed
with a protocol change, then we probably won’t mention mitigation steps
that have been tried and either have drawbacks or are ineffective. If the
outcome is a document that we looked at the problem and decided that the
issue isn’t with the protocol and we recommend no protocol changes then I
can see the work product being a discussion of non-protocol solution space.
That would include different things folks have tried what works and what
doesn’t work.
My suggestion is plan on both.
My takeaway from the rechartering discussions is that if there is a protocol
solution to this problem, it will not be simple and will take quite some time
to be effective since wide deployment would be needed. As a result, there will
be, at best, a significant period of time where whatever mitigations/work-
arounds that are available will be needed. I think we should plan on
documenting them regardless of the outcome of the protocol solution work.
The reason that I think it would be useful in the problem statement is
that it would give a way to get people up to speed. Not everybody takes
part in closed industry groups so the specifics such that they are
public in any form are important if this working group is going achieve
anything novel. Considering how aggressive the schedule is, there isn't
a lot of time for wheel reinvention.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
Ietf-dkim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
