[Top] [All Lists]

DKIM BOF -- draft charter and agenda

2005-10-11 11:31:32
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
...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

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 Leiba, Pervasive Computing Technology  

Attachment: dkim-charter-05dc.txt
Description: Text document

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>