FWIW: I agree completely with Dave's views below.
--
Arvel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
To: "James Scott" <james(_dot_)scott(_at_)liverton(_dot_)com>; "'IETF-MAILSIG'"
<ietf-mailsig(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:38 AM
Subject: RE: revised Proposed Charter
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
The fact that DKIM provides a parameter for specifying the key service to
use
obviously means that this is extensible.
So the issue is whether adding such extensions needs to be part of the
initial
DKIM wg work.
I'm still trying to understand the argument that says such work is
essential for
the deployment and use of DKIM.
For all of the email traffic on the topic of alternate key servers, I have
not
noted very broad support for pursuing it.
I was suggesting that if the charter is amended to specifically state
that
alternatives *WILL* be considered (albeit in a separate forum, probably
in
If something is pursued in a separate forum, then it is outside the scope
of the
current charter.
A charter cannot make commitments about work that will be done elsewhere.
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 productive way to pursue that is for those wishing to specify and
deploy and
alternate key service to do so. They do not need to good wishes or
permission
of the current dkim activity. All that they need is a hook in the dkim
parameter space and they already have that.
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net