Overall, I'm fine with it and I'm sure you guys know better if the charter
as written will be sufficient for passing the "WG" test, but I do have a few
The DKIM working group will not attempt to establish requirements
for trust relationships between domains or to specify reputation
or accreditation systems.
In my view, DKIM is establishing an "implied" trust relationship between
domains by the very nature of making any attempt to support or adopt the
protocol. It is going to be difficult to keep the concept of "protocol
trust" out of any discussions of SSP.
Maybe the rephrasing will help:
"The DKIM working group will not attempt to establish
requirements for trust relationships between domains
using any reputation or accreditation methodology."
The DKIM working group will consider mailing-list behaviour that is
currently deemed acceptable, will make every effort to allow such
mailing lists to continue to operate in a DKIM environment, and will
provide a plan for smooth transition of mailing lists that fail to
operate. The specs will also advise mailing lists on how to take
advantage of DKIM if they should choose to do so.
This is cool, but on a related note:
I'm not sure if it appropiate or part of the WG eventual process for
specific details to require a RFC update to be recommended. Specifically
RFC 2821, i.e., 3PS and Sender validation may suggest that a 2821.MAIL FROM
be consistent, and things of that nature.
So does a statement like so is necessary or make sense?
"The DKIM working group [will not | may] make any other
RFC update recommendations as mandated during the discovery
In other words, I don't think I read if 2821 integrated issues is out of
scope or naturally part of the process.
Other than these minor small considerations, "its all good!"
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
ietf-dkim mailing list