Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb(_at_)guppylake(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Dec 21, 2005, at 12:23 PM, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Let's be honest: We're not really arguing about the degree to which
the WG is biased towards the specifics of the DKIM draft, but rather
whether or not it is "biased towards" (I would rather say focused on)
this one fundamental approach to the exclusion of all others.
Well, that may not be what you're arguing about, but it's certainly
what I'm arguing about, at least at the present moment.
The language under debate doesn't impact the question you raise one way
or the other. The first paragraph of the charter quite clearly states
that the WG will be working on domain-level signatures. So, the language
under debate is purely about ruling out incompatible changes that still
fall along these same general lines.
Domain-level email signatures are a pretty good idea, one of many
that, taken all together, just *might* help us preserve the utility of
email and other open electronic communications. The purpose of the
new WG should be to produce the best possible domain-level email
signature standard, using DKIM as a concrete but reasonably flexible
starting point. Nobody is going to argue against considering really
meaningful improvements to DKIM, even if they introduce
incompatibilities,
Then why the push to have charter language designed to do exactly
that?
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf