Dave Crocker wrote
There is a benefit in having a charter cite possible future
work, when there is need to ensure that folks need
reassurance that particular work has been deferred rather than missed.
Absent that compelling concern, listing possible future work
does not affect current work and leads to infinite scenarios
of trying to list all of the future work that might be done.
In other words, what is the practical benefit of making the
change you are suggesting?
I believe that there is a lot of discussion on the list, sparked by concern
that the proposed charter does not permit extension of the DKIM message
verification to alternative key retrieval mechanisms, appears to be
inhibiting the process of obtaining agreement on a suitable charter.
I was suggesting that if the charter is amended to specifically state that
alternatives *WILL* be considered (albeit in a separate forum, probably in
parallel), then the process of getting the charter agreed can complete.
The DKIM drafts can then be discussed, edited, and agreement reached on the
detail, terminology and language required to specify the base DKIM
mechanisms as envisaged by the authors and amended by the WG including
extension to alternate key retrieval mechanisms.
The suggestion in this instance, is not to reassure folks that work on a
particular area has been deferred, but that it is being undertaken in a
separate forum. The technical discussion presented on this list to date
seems to suggest that there is value to the development of the DKIM standard
for that separate work to happen now rather than later.
--
James