Steve Atkins wrote:
It's a DKIM thing. If it's going to be done, this group is the group
to do it.
Backdooring it through another group is, at best, not going to be as
effective I don't think.
Adding to the responses already posted: It legitimately touches two possible
working groups, so there's nothing wrong with its being pursued in the "other"
one.
I could pretty easily argue that the dominant issue in this bit of work is the
reporting mechanism, not the peculiarities of the DKIM info being reported and
that, therefore, it's actually better in the ARF wg. Yes, the activity needs
DKIM expertise, but I'm pretty sure they'll have that covered, Murray and most
of its other participants experience profound amnesia.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html