[mailto:owner-ietf-mailsig(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of wayne
In <200572163730(_dot_)926105(_at_)bbprime> Dave Crocker
<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> writes:
The current language of the charter does not specify an open-ended
design
process. Rather, it specifies an effort to refine an
existing specification.
By "existing", you mean "so newly created that only 2 of the
3 -00 I-Ds managed to make in before the IETF-63 cut-off date".
Really, the DKIM proposal is a design-by-committee protocol,
with the design done in private and now Dave appears to be
trying to rubber stamp that design. I think it is highly
disingenuous to imply that DKIM is somehow an existing,
established standard.
It seems to me that it is quite reasonable to restrict scope to not make
changes to deployed infrastructure unless there is good reason.
Restricting scope to prohibit any extension or enhancement beyond the
core functionality agreed in private *is* a request for a rubber stamp.
Keeping the WG focused is the job of the chairs. Trying to pre-empt all
discussion in the charter is short sighted.
Surely the point of doing this work in the security area of the IETF is
to take advantage of the security expertise there. They have spent
fifteen years defining an accreditation mechanism.