Ned Freed wrote:
What we have is a very early draft. Nothing more. People seem to be arguing as
if this draft was in last call and needs to be problem free in its present
form. It isn't and it doesn't.
I think that this summarises the thread nicely. There's work needed to
either re-do ssp so that the perceived problems go away, or else to
clearly document the problematic cases that remain, or some
combination of the two.
I would support the aadition of some language to the charter saying that should
a policy declaration mechanism be produced it must carefully discuss its
intended scope and elaborate any issues that can arise with its use. But that's
as far as I would go.
I'm not sure that that's needed, now that our current draft charter
contains the following:
The DKIM working group will produce summaries of the threats that are
addressed by the standards-track specifications, while acknowledging
their limitations and scope. The DKIM working group will also
produce security requirements to guide their efforts, and will
analyze the impact on senders and receivers who are not using DKIM,
particularly any cases in which mail may be inappropriately labeled
as suspicious or spoofed.
Though I guess we could extend that to say:
...analyze the impact on senders and receivers who are, or are not,
using DKIM, ...
Or something similar.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org