This sentence in particular makes makes me particular worried:
"The specification will be based on the <draft-*-dkim-*.txt> draft
documents and will make only the minimal changes deemed essential
to the viability of the service"
Just to be clear: The text is entirely unofficial. It is candidate text that
some folks (including me) generated. It is subject to IESG approval, of
course,
and the IESG is sensitive to exactly the sort of issue you are raising.
You are certainly not the first to react to that particular sentence. It was
written with quite a bit of care, but also a clear understanding that it would
be sensitive. My own belief is that there is plenty of IETF precedence for
such
language, but that does not mean there is/will be consensus to use it for this
group.
I believe charters are usually a matter of some general, public agreement.
(Formalistically, it is approved by the IESG rather than necessarily being
based
on "group rough consensus", but open debate and agreement seems likely to
provide useful input to the IESG.)
So, this is a long-winded way of encouraging discussion about the draft
charter.
For example the issue you raise, about the text you cite, would seem
*entirely*
appropriate to discuss.
Dave, FWIW, I think the proposed text goes a bit too far. Specifically, I have
no problem with saying the work will be based on the DKIM documents - having
read them they seem to be to be the right starting point. But as for the rest -
the problem is simply that there are a lot of people who are willing to
standardize stuff that may work in their neck of the woods but isn't going to
work well if at all elsewhere, and who refuse to believe that those elswheres
matter. And that could easily make getting consensus that a change is in fact
critical difficult.
Had you said something like "deemed useful to improve the viability of services
based on these specifications" I would have no problem. That's about where the
bar needs to be IMO.
Ned