> the IETF has done work on message signing before,
and some of those earlier efforts (like CMS in detached signature mode) look
enough like pieces of DKIM that there is question of whether DKIM not using
them indicates that they do not work, that this message signing is
a better point solution, that this message signing mechanism would be
better over all, or none of the above.
I believe the discussion Ted suggests IS in scope for the working group we're
proposing to charter, and I don't believe that the charter text in question
affects that. It will be up to the WG chairs to judge rough consensus on the
discussion, or to decide, should it happen, when the discussion has become
fruitless and wasteful of the WG's time, especially considering the short
schedule that's proposed. If Russ should choose me as a co-chair of the DKIM
WG, be assured that we WILL have this discussion. Be also assured that I
won't let it turn into a rathole and impede progress.
I believe that is the balance that has to exist in any WG, and that the ADs
place a good deal of trust in the WG chairs to both allow discussions that
ought to happen, and control discussions so they stay within the scope of the
WG and do not get out of hand.
I don't think that anything we say in the charter changes this; it is meant
to provide a guide for resolving the ratholes and distractions.
Barry Leiba, Pervasive Computing Technology
ietf-dkim mailing list