On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Dave Crocker wrote:
This list is for discussing the technology of DKIM and pursuing IETF
standardization.
This list is for discussion of technologies of automated email signatures
and not exclusive to DKIM.
It is for MASS IETF standardization efforts.
There will be a meeting on this in Paris and it will be about DKIM.
Unless I'm mistaken, MASS stands for "Message Authentication Signature
Service" and I do not see any "DKIM" name in that as such this implies
larger scope then just DKIM. Previous MASS BoF was on more then just DK
or IIM and was in the area of these technologies in general and so should
be new BoF if it is to be considered a successor to previous one.
It is of course within your right (ok, not yours per se, but developers
of DKIM) to request new BoF (completely new first bof, i.e. DKIM BoF)
from IETF to discuss exclusively DKIM. In such a case a procedure within
IETF would call for establishing a new mail list with scope limited to
discussions about DKIM. This is not such a mail list.
If you believe I'm wrong about understanding IETF procedures about BoF
please speak right away.
The IETF has some rules pertaining to intellectual property and it
....
It is in the interest of IETF to make sure that technology can be used
by all implementors of software in the area of standardization work.
The IETF has some rules pertaining to intellectual property. If you
have reason to believe that they are not being followed, that should be
discussed here.
And part of those rules are that if there are several technologies
available for given area and some of those are restricted by patents
and can not be used by everyone then IETF participants should choose
unrestricted technology.
Knowing how licensing requirements would effect implementations would
go long away to understanding if there are restrictions on the technology
and this seems within scope of IETF discussions and standardization efforts.
Otherwise, the discussion is quite simply out of scope.
First of all as you already pointed out this is not yet WG so exact
scope rules do not apply right now anyway. And second - see above.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net