1. The existing DKIM specification does not provide an
"interface" to a
reputation system. Hence a working group effort to define one
is entirely
open-ended. The fact that it has not been a focus of IETF
discussions means
that there is little basis for assessing the nature of the
output or, for that
matter, the likelihood of success.
Rubbish.
The interface to X509 is almost entirely constrained.
You are pre-judging this issue according to your own prejudices here. I
note that in the MARID effort you argued strenuously to keep reputation
mechanisms out of scope then introduced one to the group yourself.
2. To be productive, a working group needs to have careful
focus.
It also needs to deliver a useful product. Far more IETF groups founder
because the problem is underscoped than because the scope is too broad.
3. The mere fact that PKIX specifications exist does not
automatically encumber
other working groups to use them. Even were there a
significant deployment of
PKIX on the global Internet, a working group would not
automatically be
obligated to use them.
But an IETF group can be obligated to describe how it will interoperate
with them.
That is exactly the sort of thing that the Ads and the IESG are there
for.
To repeat: so far, no such constituency
has been evident.
That there is a constituency is very evident, the only debate here is
over the size of the constituency.
Since it is clear that you are not even hended in this matter I want to
put it on record that:
* I disagree with the charter on this point
* I do not have confidence in you as a WG chair.