On 07/01/2014 07:58 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Steven M Jones writes: > > [ ...] > > part) how such work completed outside and after this WG could be > > plugged in? > > I think "precluding" is advisable. [...] > > I don't see how we can > really "define" a plug-in beyond "new algorithm", while that algorithm > is a well-defined component of DMARC (ie, could be considered to be > the "socket"). > > If changes beyond that are needed, I guess the Grinch stole Christmas.
I don't have such a definition in-hand, I just observed the potential synchronization issue / exclusion with respect to another working group and thought, "Do we have to create that dependency on completing/publishing?" - thinking back to Jim Fenton's comments. Maybe a year into this work such a definition would be clear, who knows? I'm not worried we'll run out of work so quickly that no other WG will have a chance to make progress. :) And from being around a previous WG I can appreciate the need to define a scope carefully to avoid potential time sinks. I didn't see that being the case with this particular small clause, but perhaps others have that concern. Again, not something I'd hold up adopting the charter over, just thought it would bear some public comment. Appreciate your feedback, --S. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
