On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 3:02 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 2:43 PM Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The initial effort to form a working group in the IETF was pretty casual >> and surfaced a lack of sufficient consensus among advocates. The IETF >> said go away until there's more agreement. >> >> We went away for a year, during which we developed the original version >> of DKIM, which demonstrated the coherence. >> >> The current effort has none of that existing critical mass of work and >> agreement. This makes the effort quite a lot riskier. >> >> The fact that things are taking quite a few months doesn't help. >> > > That's true. I'd forgotten this bit of the history. > > If we think this constraint is appropriate, I'm fine to include it. Does > someone want to propose a sentence or two? I need to avoid getting my > wrist slapped for both championing the charter and writing it. > The IESG approved the proposed charter to go out for external review. I've added a few proposed milestones with dates (these can be edited later) and taken a run at editing the text to add the constraints people were proposing. Please review and let me know if I got it wrong or missed any feedback, or if the dates on the milestones are not realistic. They were selected on the assumption that we charter and have co-chairs in place by the end of January. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dkim/ Lastly, I have one co-chair volunteer, but I need a second, preferably someone who has chaired something in the IETF before. Please let me know if you'd like to either volunteer or nominate someone. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
