On 20 Nov 2024, at 10:02, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > A reminder: > > Please avoid engaging in engineering discussions for the moment. We're > discussing the proposed new charter and whether it's appropriate for a > rechartering of DKIM to develop DKIM2.
Yes, let’s do that. I keep having to search through my email for the draft charter, so I’ll repeat the URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dkim/ I’m not a very good charter creator. It’s a very specialized skill. It doesn’t seem like the tone of this draft matches other charters I have read, but I’m not sure how to correct that. My main comment is that it lists five documents as deliverables, but makes it sound like they’re all independent. At some point there needs to be a standards-track specification for DKIM2 created, and it will have normative references to the other documents, like the error and bounce handling, reverse changes algebra, and replay protection. Are all of these considered essential for DKIM2? It would also be good to note somewhere that, unlike DKIM, references to the message envelope are in-scope. -Jim _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
