On Thu, 23 Jan 2025, Richard Clayton wrote:
which I found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dkim/
for the record, I think this is suitable for moving forward
Same here. It's a lot of work but it solves real longstanding problems.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com,
Murray, et al,
I started this on Jan14 but, well, got distracted...
The draft is moving in a good direction, but I think it still has some
points worthy of serious concern.
Some basic points:
1. A charter has 3 audiences:
The IESG for approval;
The working group participants for team f
I think the charter sufficiently describes problems that exist in today's
ecosystem, and is enough to get us started on work toward resolving them.
On the topic of adding new vs extending DKIM, I think the relevant part of
the charter is:
> The working group will strongly prefer output that, when
On 1/24/25 2:05 PM, Allen Robinson wrote:
For what it's worth, I personally think that the add new vs extend
existing discussion is a very valuable one for the WG to have (and
document) at some point. I'm not currently of the opinion that we can
safely add all of the proposed functionality to
+1 to not constraining the workgroup too much at this point. I think there
are many details that need to be discussed before we know what is the best
option.
I'm not opposed to making some o the tweaks Dave suggested to more
accurately describe the problem and the goal as long as we focus on what w
I believe that the most recent charter as drafted by Murray is reasonable to
get started. Some (minor) tweaks are fine, but I honestly think we’re working
at the margins and the time / effort to continue refining it has reached the
point of diminishing returns as I don’t believe they’re going
