Hector Santos wrote:
The introduction of CVS/DNA helped kill MARID and it will help kill DKIM if
this isn't put to a stop. Isn't this out the charter scope?
As far as I understand those, yes, they're out of scope.
If what Doug was talking about was a clearly described,
performant, selective revocation scheme for dkim-signed
messages, and if that were something that scaled well
and had traction then I believe it would be in scope.
Having said that, as it stands I have doubts about
every one of those desirable aspects when it comes to
his scheme. But personally I'd rather that I (and the
list) understood it better before discarding it or, if
it garnered consensus, adopting it.
Certainly the charter does not say that "only the current
specs can be considered, and no other features may be
discussed" - if it did, this would not become a wg IMO.
I do understand that this group has some history. You
(plural:-) however, also have to understand that if this
becomes a wg, then the "members" of that new group are
those subscribed to the list at that point (who can express
themselves cogently etc.) and the fact that some people
decided to include/omit feature-foo some time ago, for
perfectly good reasons, will have to be explained yet
again, (if its not in the specs already) and might even
potentially be changed if that's where the wg-consensus
is. You can think of me as that kind of new participant
if you like:-)
But, the dkim specs seem to me to be basically correct
enough, that the amount of substantive change required
will hopefully be relatively modest, so whichever of
you (plural:-) gets nervous every time they see the word
"change", well, just relax a bit and have a bit more
confidence in what you've already achieved.
ietf-dkim mailing list