On Monday 19 October 2009 02:54:47 Barry Leiba wrote:
Coming back to this: I've still seen very little direct input on the
charter proposal. JD likes it. Dave made some specific comments,
which I responded to; there've been no other comments on what Dave's
said. There've been no other specific proposals for changes to the
text.
Franck suggested gathering data on whether DKIM has been useful. I
responded to that, saying that I don't think it's a necessary issue
for chartering at this stage. Agreement or disagreement with that
would be useful.
I think supporting data collection by those deploying it would be facilitated
by getting http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dkim-reporting-05 to a
RFC would be good. Eventually we should come back to data collection later
though.
Bill suggested looking at extensions for additional signature
delegation, Michael Hammer agreed, and a thread branched off from
there. Is that still an active consideration for the charter, or not?
Doug and myself have been refining a draft that should be out soon for comment
so I think this is good for the charter.
Charles wants to see something more about guidance for mailing lists.
Is that an active consideration?
Definitely. By giving then guidance up frount there will be fewer, or
consistent signature failures for the verifiers to handle.
Some have opined that it's even too early to consider taking the base
DKIM protocol to Draft Standard; let's make sure we have consensus on
that point, one way or the other.
+1 here
I'd like to settle very soon on what, if anything, to do about
re-chartering. Please address my specific points, above, so we can
get there. And please keep the discussion focused on the charter,
without going into lengthy discussion of details of the work.
Barry, as chair
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html