Hiya,
On 03/12/2024 00:40, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 11/27/2024 7:47 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:I do not think this proposed work is research nor ought it be related to the IRTF in any shape or form.Stephen, Howdy.I gave reasons for suggesting this is IRTF work.
In the message to which I was reacting you said: * As provided, this is an extremely broad and extremely vague statement of work. It continues to sound far more appropriate for the IRTF than the IETF, especially absent a concete draft specification to take as input. I don't think broad+vague means research, even if extreme. As I understand it, the proponents want to develop a new version of DKIM, which should be a straight engineering task. I do agree that some of the written description is vague at present. But I'd say that might well be fixed relatively quickly, either via a draft that sets out more of the specifics, or via the inability to produce such a thing, in which case the proposed WG wouldn't thrive, but it wouldn't be the first time that happened. Personally, I'd be confident enough in the proponents to be ok with that draft being produced after a WG is formed, (followed by an adoption discussion), but I can see that others might disagree with that. Cheers, S.
It might help for you to offer your reasons for disagreeing?d/
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org