Shouldn't we move forward Murray's draft "quickly" that allows to report back
broken DKIM signature to the validating domain?
This would allow to collect information on why signature gets broken making the
DKIM draft stronger.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Leiba" <barryleiba(_dot_)mailing(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
To: "IETF DKIM WG" <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 February, 2010 12:40:15 PM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposed new charter
Here is a charter proposal for us to bash. It covers the items we
voted on. As a working group, we'll need to agree on the wording, and
come up with a few reasonable milestones with dates.
It's only been a few days, but so far we're getting good agreement on
the charter text, but no milestones and dates. We'd really like the
working group -- not the chairs -- to decide on the deliverables and
the dates. If folks are willing to agree to text, but not to be clear
about what we'll produce when, we think that's a sign of insufficient
energy to move forward.
If y'all want to do this, we'll need some proposals for what gets
accomplished and when, so we can discuss that too.
Barry, as chair
_______________________________________________
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