On 3/13/23 8:14 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Our current milestones are:
Apr 2023 - Post a consensus problem statement draft to the
datatracker (may
not go to the IESG)
Jun 2023 - Proposal regarding plans for remaining document(s)
presented to
the AD
Dec 2023 - Submit technical specifications for replay-resistant DKIM
enhancement(s) to the IESG at Proposed Standard
Per the charter, Or Not. That is what I'm asking about.
Between the milestones and the charter text, the charter text is
typically the more important of the two. Milestones can be edited
without full IESG review, while the charter can't. So if the working
group needs more time than April or June, that can be negotiated.
Plus, frankly, I made up those dates during chartering. The chairs and
I haven't discussed whether they're reasonable or whether something
else should be there. If people want to propose adjustments, I'm all
ears.
Considering that the activity is far from jumping here, those dates look
like so much wishful thinking. The current state of the problem draft is
still extremely vague and seems to be suffering from political issues
that people who know what's going on can't or won't elaborate. If the
only thing that can be produced is so vague then I really don't see what
the point is in going forward. So maybe the April milestone needs to
include whether there is anything actionable and especially testable.
That is, if there is a problem how can we know whether a solution works?
The second issue is the set of solution approaches. At some point they
need to be considered. If there are more forthcoming, there needs to be
some sort of deadline so that they can be read and considered. Maybe
that aligns with the June milestone, but I'm not sure. Which remaining
documents are we talking about here?
The charter also mentions operational recommendations, iirc. I'm not
sure where that fits in. Again, if the problem statement remains as
vague as it is right now, then that should be completely off the table
as a wg item since it's then so much navel gazing. If people who are
more in the know want to create an informational document, that's fine
but if there's no way for the wg to vet it, then there's no point in the
wg submitting it. It should just be an individual submission and ask the
IESG to publish it ala DMARC.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
Ietf-dkim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
