Eric Rescorla wrote:
But the problem is that the currently proposed charter, would, IMO,
preclude the adoption of something that was a better way to go if it
couldn't be demonstrated that that change was necessary for the success
of DKIM. That's why discussing that charter language is prior
the discussion of specific technical changes.
That's the nice thing about objections without investment.
They are so purely conceptual and, therefore are not burdened by any
obligation to provide substance. Not even the minor effort of examples.
In that light, it's not surprising that you failed to gain support
during the open DKIm BOF and online group discussions.
But never mind, you've got folks hassled enough they are going to give
in just to get the working group chartered. Boy oh boy does this bode
well for the working group, or what?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org