FWIW: I agree completely with Dave's views below.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
To: "James Scott" <james(_dot_)scott(_at_)liverton(_dot_)com>; "'IETF-MAILSIG'"
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:38 AM
Subject: RE: revised Proposed Charter
I believe that there is a lot of discussion on the list, sparked by
that the proposed charter does not permit extension of the DKIM message
verification to alternative key retrieval mechanisms, appears to be
The fact that DKIM provides a parameter for specifying the key service to
obviously means that this is extensible.
So the issue is whether adding such extensions needs to be part of the
DKIM wg work.
I'm still trying to understand the argument that says such work is
the deployment and use of DKIM.
For all of the email traffic on the topic of alternate key servers, I have
noted very broad support for pursuing it.
I was suggesting that if the charter is amended to specifically state
alternatives *WILL* be considered (albeit in a separate forum, probably
If something is pursued in a separate forum, then it is outside the scope
A charter cannot make commitments about work that will be done elsewhere.
The suggestion in this instance, is not to reassure folks that work on a
particular area has been deferred, but that it is being undertaken in a
The productive way to pursue that is for those wishing to specify and
alternate key service to do so. They do not need to good wishes or
of the current dkim activity. All that they need is a hook in the dkim
parameter space and they already have that.
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net