On 3/26/23 3:13 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 10:29 AM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
On 3/24/23 6:19 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> I don't agree with the premise. I think what was tried and didn't
> work should be documented in the result that the working group comes
> out with, but not in the problem statement.
There isn't a place in the charter/milestones for that.
The charter identifies these possible outputs in some combination:
(1) a clear problem statement;
(2) one or more protocol update document(s);
(3) a statement of some kind that the WG determined no feasible
protocol solution exists (and, one would hope, how it reached this
conclusion);
(4) an update to current DKIM operational advice with respect to the
stated problem.
The only constraint in the charter is that (2) and (3) are mutually
exclusive.
I believe that a history of what techniques were previously tried and
failed could arguably go into any of them. The charter is neither
prescriptive or proscriptive on this point.
My contention is that documenting what has failed in the problem
statement saves time eventually in the solution space as you can
reference it when somebody brings it up as to why it doesn't work. It
would be just a cut and paste for (3) along with other discussion of
what was also considered and rejected. For (4) it gives a basis of what
not to suggest.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
Ietf-dkim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
