On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 6:57 PM Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
> Are you a wg chair? IESG? He's not, but I am. Let's please maintain decorum here. I don't want to have to moderate a working group that hasn't even started yet, but I'm not shy to warn everyone that I'm a short-timer Area Director with an itchy trigger finger. It's not your bailiwick to shutdown discussion > especially in light of that the general talk is about revamping DKIM > generally to make it better when there isn't even an agreed upon charter. > The proposed charter alludes to extending or modifying DKIM, but I'm getting the impression now that we're more likely in the space of doing something that looks a lot like DKIM and probably builds upon it, but is ultimately distinct from it. I'm happy to be corrected, but if that's the case, then it seems to me to be very likely that extending or modifying DKIM itself will end up being out of scope. And I think that's probably where John is coming from. (If he's not, he should tell me I'm wrong.) I think that's one question this community should sort out before we can advance something, before any more technical discussions sneak in here. A charter should be an open ended negotiation on what work will be taken > up. You can have an opinion but not an attitude. > That goes for everyone. -MSK, ART AD
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
