On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 8:29 AM Laura Atkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> We have a current version of the draft problem statement available on the > data tracker. Murray and a few others made a few comments that were added > in the -03 version. > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-dkim/Q5ybHiYkMlg5QFaFp28Y8uSme1Q/ > > Based on discussions, there seems to be favor to documenting what has been > tried and not worked. > > Question for the working group: Should the discussion of what hasn’t > worked be in the problem statement as an Appendix? Or should it be in a > separate document as working group output? > > Along the same lines, do members of the working group feel we should > include some of the solution space in the problem statement? Or should the > discussion be reworked? > > Perhaps instead of "possible solution space" maybe "scenarios and how they > affect dkim replay" ? We welcome any suggestions of wording changes. > I just did an informal poll of the IESG members that happened to be active in the IESG slack channel at the time I asked. There's a previous IESG statement on this topic that's relevant: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/support-documents/ Generally, this informal poll suggests the IESG disfavors a document that is nothing more than a problem statement. This aligns, unsurprisingly, with the IESG statement. Such documents, by themselves, have uncertain archival value. So if we want to publish a problem statement, with or without a "what we've tried" appendix, we should consider merging the proposed solution(s) into such a document before advancing it to the IESG. -MSK, ART AD
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
