On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 1:19 PM Pete Resnick wrote:
> Murray, are you looking for existing documents to be listed in the
> charter that might be proposed for adoption, or do you want a more
> detailed description of what documents that will fulfill the charter
> will contain?
>
The former. It s
On Thu, Dec 12, 2024, at 08:59, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> I've uploaded the charter text at the top of this thread to the tracker (not
> the one from 11/27 yet). I wanted to do another round trip on some of Dave's
> points.
Happy to. I realise I had a draft which already hopefully addressed
(I see I wrote this as a draft before going away on vacation and then didn't
get back to it in the rush before Christmas sorry.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2024, at 14:35, Dave Crocker wrote:
> • Second bullet: "The draft seems to include a target of 'trust
> relationships' which is an open research topic t
On 11 Dec 2024, at 22:59, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I've uploaded the charter text at the top of this thread to the
tracker
(not the one from 11/27 yet). I wanted to do another round trip on
some of
Dave's points.
I am not concerned with milestones yet. The text is far more
important.
O
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 5:08 AM Richard Clayton
wrote:
> I had not been prioritising making this available given your ban on
> discussing anything technical, but if you want it to hand in order to
> progress getting a charter in place so we can actually do some work
> here...
>
You can upload it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message , Murray S. Kucherawy writes
>Bron (or anyone involved), do we have any initial documents to
>propose formally in the charter?
RSN I shall have a version of RFC6376 that I have hacked around to
document what DKIM2 looks like (su
Murray
On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 4:59 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> I've uploaded the charter text at the top of this thread to the tracker
> (not the one from 11/27 yet). I wanted to do another round trip on some of
> Dave's points.
>
> I am not concerned with milestones yet. The text is far
I've uploaded the charter text at the top of this thread to the tracker
(not the one from 11/27 yet). I wanted to do another round trip on some of
Dave's points.
I am not concerned with milestones yet. The text is far more important.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 4:15 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
> Summa
Dave Crocker wrote in
:
...
|SMTP has a posting, followed by one or more 'direct' deliveries (or
|failures, of course.) Relaying through MTAs is part of this. That is,
|really, all an SMTP session does.
|
|And it does not include going through translation gateways, mailing
|lists, or th
On 12/2/2024 5:52 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 03/12/2024 00:40, Dave Crocker wrote:
I gave reasons for suggesting this is IRTF work.
In the message to which I was reacting you said:
* As provided, this is an extremely broad and extremely vague
statement of work. It continues to sound
Hiya,
On 03/12/2024 00:40, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 11/27/2024 7:47 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
I do not think this proposed work is research nor ought it
be related to the IRTF in any shape or form.
Stephen,
Howdy.
I gave reasons for suggesting this is IRTF work.
In the message to which
On 11/27/2024 7:47 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
I do not think this proposed work is research nor ought it
be related to the IRTF in any shape or form.
Stephen,
Howdy.
I gave reasons for suggesting this is IRTF work. It might help for you
to offer your reasons for disagreeing?
d/
--
Dave C
Hi Tim,
On 11/27/2024 6:12 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
Emails often flow indirectly through multiple systems, undergoing
redirection, expansion into multiple copies via aliases and
mailing lists, as well as rewriting and filtering before
eventually arriving at a mailbox or being pr
It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
>I concur, and I would expect the IESG to bristle if they think the charter
>has any sort of "please just approve this with minimal input" vibe buried
>in it.
Oh, absolutely. But there can be a surprisingly fine line between "go away"
and "this is a wel
Just on this one point; I'll catch up on this thread and the revised
charter text later today. (I'm behind due to the US holidays this week.)
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 7:47 PM Stephen Farrell
wrote:
> I think the proponents would be wise to be more visibly open
> to serious consideration of (even
Bron,
I read with interest the proposal published at
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-gondwana-dkim2-motivation-01.html
I think it could contribute to the development, with all due respect to
DKIM technology, the core approach already deserves it. But there are a
few points that should be mention
Hiya,
I read the proposed charter and briefly scanned the I-D [1].
I support going forward and creating a WG on that basis.
I disagree with some things in [1] but those can be handled
later. (And no, I don't have a written-down list now:-)
I do not think this proposed work is research nor oug
Dave
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 7:15 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 11/21/2024 1:21 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>
> I have made a second pass at it. Text below, or see the raw copy at:
>
> https://notes.ietf.org/YGynIPpYS7yqg5G7ZeSQeA
>
>
> Summary:
>
>- As provided, this is an extremely broad and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message <64e2e0bf-40a2-4c8a-ad0b-6a6fe0bab...@dcrocker.net>, Dave
Crocker writes
>Given the considerable increase of scope for DKIM and range of
>topics cited here for improvement, the charter should have a
>concrete proposal to take
On 11/21/2024 1:21 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
I have made a second pass at it. Text below, or see the raw copy at:
https://notes.ietf.org/YGynIPpYS7yqg5G7ZeSQeA
Summary:
* As provided, this is an extremely broad and extremely vague
statement of work. It continues to sound far more appropr
that the work will
“favor designs which have been tested for interoperability at scale.”
- Trent
From: Bron Gondwana
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2024 at 2:25 PM
To: Tim Wicinski , Bron Gondwana
Cc: ietf-dkim@ietf.org
Subject: [Ietf-dkim] Re: Proposed Charter - try 2
Hi all - it looks like
Hi all - it looks like no other responses all week! I'm going to merge your
ideas.
Given there are no other comments - Murray, are we ready to take this to IESG?
Updates still at:
https://notes.ietf.org/YGynIPpYS7yqg5G7ZeSQeA
And I've posted the whole thing at the end...
>> DKIM gives us a w
Bron
Thanks for listening to my half baked ideas. Some small tweaks can be
taken for what they are worth.
But this feels like the right balance - I vote for ship it to the IESG and
let them soil it.
tim
On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 4:22 AM Bron Gondwana wrote:
> Thanks to all of you for great fe
23 matches
Mail list logo
