Stephen Farrell wrote:
Dave,
Dave Crocker wrote:
The Threats Analysis document is already suffering mission creep, both
in terms of "essential" audience and "essential" scope. It began as a
document to satisfy Russ as the potential sponsoring AD, who asked for
something that described what threats DKIM responds to. It now is
being required to satisfy the demands of a larger group of folk, and
satisfy a larger set of questions.
That's what happens when you go out standardising, as you well know.
All this, for something that is, in fact, not typically part of the
chartering process. (I suspect it is a unique requirement; this is
probably the first time it has been placed in the criticl path for
chartering.)
I think that its correct to say that this wg formation is a bit
special that way. Historical reasons probably, but my focus is
on getting it done rather than fixing the wg-formation process.
Feel free to take up that cause wherever it belongs, I do wish
you good luck if you decide to invest energy there!
Wait a minute. The threats document was specifically to satisfy Russ
as the sponsering AD to charter the WG. If Russ isn't satisfied,
then work remains to be done. If he is satisfied, then there is
absolutely no reason to widen the scope of this draft. Your job
here is to get this wg formed and nothing more at this time. All
other uses for this draft, including expanding its scope after the
wg is formed should be out of scope for completion now. The only
thing on that front that is necessary is to make the charter clear
about what we intend to do with this draft in the charter.
Mike
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org