Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>>It seems to me that there are two possible effects a limited
>>charter can produce. One that precludes further work in a
>>given direction, and one that allows that further work to
>>happen in the future. Now, nobody's omniscient so the latter
>>is always a calculated risk, but it sure seems to me that
>>DKIM with respect to reputation is in the latter rather than
>>former category. I for one would be rather dismayed if it did
>>not lend itself well to reputation/accredation systems. It
>>seems to me that the risk is pretty low, so divide and
>>conquer seems more prudent.
>
>
> There is a third effect that I have seen in WS-Security. The original
> charter is so over-constrained leading to excessive debate over minutiae
> and the whole process is slowed rather than speeded up.
I guess I'm less fearful of that than opening an entirely
new and decidedly less investigated area as part of the
wg's deliverables.
I agree 100%.
I think that with ssp and auth-res on
the plate too we have quite a lot to get done. We also have a
requirements draft. Maybe that's the right place to put
hooks to make dkim rep/accredation friendly? Frankly I'm
not sure I know what is currently missing in DKIM to build
a name rather than IP based reputation system on top of
the DKIM foundation.
Neither am I. And in any case, nothing prevents us from addressing additional
issues by rechartering once work on the initial set of drafts completes.
Ned