As I have said before, I'm in favor of going dormant for a while (#10).
But if we don't, I'm in favor of #1 and #7 and various places between
neutral and highly negative on the others.
-Jim
Barry Leiba wrote:
1. Advance DKIM base to Draft Standard
2. 3rd-party authorization label:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-otis-dkim-tpa-label/
If you have not read this draft, please do; we'd like to get a good
sense of whether to work on this.
3. Other 3rd-party signing issues (New protocol? Info doc?)
4. Mailing list cohabitation ("dkim=except-mlist")
5. Other mailing list issues (info doc)
6. Specifying ADSP/forwarder guidelines for re-signing (is this
different from mailing list issues?)
7. Collect data on deployment and effectiveness of DKIM base
8. Collect data on deployment and effectiveness of ADSP, and consider
future of ADSP
9. Update overview and deployment/operations documents (info), as new
data are collected.
10. Go dormant for a while, and revisit these questions in 8 to 12 months.
Let the polling begin.
Barry (and Stephen), as chairs
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html