[mailto:owner-ietf-mailsig(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dave
Crocker
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.
It means that it is INTENDED to be extensible, not that the
extensibility mechanism works.
So the issue is whether adding such extensions needs to be
part of the initial
DKIM wg work.
There are three options, the extensions may be REQUIRED work, PERMITTED
work or EXCLUDED work.
I find it somewhat strange that so much time be taken to insist that the
work be EXCLUDED.
This is the type of thing that is normally left to the discretion of the
chairs.