The chairs are happy with how this discussion has been going so far,
except that we remind people that discussion of any details of
iSchedule or any other protocol that might cite DKIM is entirely out
of scope -- we need to accept that people want to use parts of the
DKIM mechanism, and not, at this point, criticise their design.
We'll let the discussion go through the end of next week -- let's say,
through the end of the day on Thursday, 20 Jan -- and then we'll make
a consensus call. Between now and then, please continue to discuss
specifically the idea of whether the right answer for the overall good
of the DKIM specification is to make the proposed split now, or not
to. And at some point between now and then, please make it clear
where you stand on the question, so we can fairly judge consensus.
We also thought that the outline of the proposed split would be enough
to work with, but there've been a lot of questions of the details. We
understand that the editors have done a draft of the split that they
will soon be ready to post as (individual) Internet drafts, and we've
asked them to post them. When they do, please keep in mind that they
are there to answer the questions that are coming up, and NOT to has
out all the split details now. If the working group approves the
split, we can hammer out the details then. Use these drafts to see,
specifically, what's being proposed, understand that IF we agree to go
in that direction they will still be up for changes, and don't get
mired in arguing the details now.
On a procedural note: the chairs think that it's within the charter to
decide to satisfy charter work item 1 (DKIM to Draft Standard) by
making this split, and we do not think there's a procedural issue
raised here. Should we decide NOT to make the split and to proceed to
Draft Standard with a single 4871bis document, the chairs DO think
that revisiting the question is splitting the documents later -- a
fair approach to this -- would require rechartering.
Again, please continue the discussion of the proposed split through 20
January, and let us know where you stand as we evaluate consensus.
Barry, as chair
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html