[mailto:owner-ietf-mailsig(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
william(at)elan.net:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, wayne wrote:
The draft charter is actually at
http://mipassoc.org/mass/mass-charter-04dc.txt
Secondly, this appears to be aimed at, basically, rubber
stamping the
DKIM drafts. Is there any real point in people outside the DKIM
design committee contributing anything?
This sentence in particular makes makes me particular worried:
"The specification will be based on the <draft-*-dkim-*.txt> draft
documents and will make only the minimal changes deemed essential
to the viability of the service"
To me that means that any discussions or suggestion of change
to current draft can be ruled outside the scope of
discussions and in fact I'm uncertain why with sentence like
that WG is even necessary as authors could as easily send it
as individual submission since they appear to not be
interested in discussion any core issues.
That is actually how the IETF was originally intended to function.
People bring a specification that has a solid core and a significant
degree of engineering effort. The WG then works on producing a
specification that is based on the central principles and core but is
better documented and the IETF accepts change control of future
versions.
There is no shortage of work that needs to be done that builds on the
basic core. But the WG is not intended to be an open forum for people to
bring their header based email signature scheme along. If people want to
do that they can ask the ADs for their own working group and they can
assemble their own coalition of support.
Verisign also developed a very similar technology, as did other parties.
The reason that we did not put them on the table as well is that doing
so would not help advance the objective of getting Internet email signed
on a widespread basis.