I haven't looked at the issue tracker. I've seen messages that were
posted to the list that were saying much the same things I said at the
BOFs and before the WG was chartered, and I've read the current
documents and seen that the issues are not addressed or acknowledged.
Which is to say that we have a process -- that we've published and
followed -- and you couldn't be bothered to use it.
I spent a lot of time trying to get DKIM heading in a useful direction
before the WG was chartered - and failed to do so. Based on the DKIM
charter, my experience with previous IETF working groups, and my
limited exchanges with people on the DKIM mailing list and in the BOFs,
I concluded that it was not a good use of my time to try to participate
actively in the DKIM discussion or follow the mailing list. That's
presumably why I wasn't aware of the tracker. I'm glad you have one,
though I don't think it really addresses the need for external review
that I've been talking about.
Regarding DKIM, my current intention is to write up a detailed review
of the current DKIM specs and publish that review as an I-D. Perhaps
issues for the tracker can be gleaned from that I-D.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf