On December 8, 2022 12:26:45 AM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 2:06 PM Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> As appealing as the AS concept is, I've never been clear how operationally
>> useful they are.
>>
>> More to the current point, if the anti-replay work to be done benefits
>> from a position on transit vs. non-transit, then including it directly in
>> an anti-replay specification would be more helpful than in a separate AS.
>>
>Fair enough. Does the charter need to say that a revision to best
>practices, relative to the replay problem, might be a possible output?
>It's within the realm of possibility that no protocol work comes out of
>this, but a "checkpoint" about current realities might be good to publish
>in that case.
Yes. It's not a given that protocol changes are the only non-failure outcomes.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
