I believe the text here:
Since experimentation resulted in significant Internet deployment of these
specifications, the DKIM working group will make every reasonable attempt to
keep changes compatible with what is deployed, making incompatible changes only
when they are necessary for the success of the specifications.
implies the need to be clarify the charter in two ways. The charter needs to
reaffirm that the IETF has change control over the specifications at this
point, so that there is no question over who gets to decide whether an
incompatible change is necessary. The charter also needs to indicate that the
working group will consider the relationship of this work to other, existing
IETF technologies. That does not imply that it needs to adopt them, but
explaining why it chose to use, for example, this signature mechanism rather
than one of the existing ones would help the IETF understand whether this
mechanism is a better point solution, implies a problem with the existing
mechanisms which should be fixed in the existing solutions, or should be
considered as the basis of a more wholesale replacement. Doing so in its
first milestone document seems like a reasonable way to accomplish this, but
doing so in the standards-track specifications also seems reasonable.
regards,
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf