The most important thing we have to do before the BOF is to get some consensus on a charter for the proposed Working Group, and set an agenda for the BOF. To the first end, let me start by posting the current version of the post-Paris draft charter. I think a few changes to it will help, and I know Stephen has some quite significant comments and changes that he'd like to see, so let's bat this around and try to wind up with something we can go with by the end of this week. The main changes that I think are needed are these: * I think the intent of this sentence has been widely misunderstood: "The working group will make only the minimal changes deemed useful to improve the viability of services that are based on these specifications." ...and I'd like the clarify it. The point is not that we want to limit discussion to moving commas. The point is that there's a significant deployment of some of this already out there, and we'd like to maintain compatibilty with that installed base, to the extent that it's reasonable to do so. If an incompatible change is Really the Right Thing, we should do it. But let's be sure that it's Really the Right Thing. So I'd like to see wording that clarifies the intent there. * I want to make it much clearer, right in the charter, that no one thinks this will "stop spam", and that that isn't the intent of the spec nor the goal of the Working Group. We do mention forgery, but I don't think we point out clearly enough that it's the forgery that this is addressing, and not other aspects of spam fighting. Stephen and I also talked about adding an informational document to the deliverables, and I'll let him talk about that some more when he responds here. Also: I know the milestones are extremely aggressive, and that's intentional. Those of us who've worked on getting this far want to move this work along *quickly*, because we believe that it's a critical component of the anti-spam/anti-phishing toolbox, and that we need it *now*. That said, let's look at those dates and accept "aggressive", but make sure they're feasible. OK, let's get started. What do you think? Barry -- Barry Leiba, Pervasive Computing Technology (leiba(_at_)watson(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com) http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba http://www.research.ibm.com/spam
dkim-charter-05dc.txt
Description: Text document