On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 2:05 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 1:42 PM Trent Adams <tadams= > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Perhaps it’s just me... but I think it’d be great if we could focus on >> the question of the charter before diving into the solution so that we can >> unlock the coveted “Work Group Status” in order to leap off the deep end. >> > > It's not just you. This is what I asked for previously. > > The charter (the current text is in the datatracker for all to see) is > queued for a telechat next week. The question the IESG will answer then is > "Is this in a good enough state to submit it to the IETF community for > review?" It doesn't need to be in its final state by then, but the closer, > the better. Then after two weeks of public review and feedback, the IESG > decides whether it's ready to charter and create the working group. > > That means there's still plenty of time to change it based on feedback > here and elsewhere; I've simply decided that we're far enough along in the > process to trigger those more formal review steps. > > To reframe the discussion, if that helps, you could think about the > standard BoF questions (pulled from RFC 5434): > FWIW, my two cents: > > - there is a problem that needs solving, and the IETF is the right > group to attempt solving it. > Definitely yes, as SMTP email is an IETF invented technology. Improving email authentication to be more broadly usable, in a practical way, will help to make email more functional, and that work belongs in the IETF. > - there is a critical mass of participants willing to work on the > problem (e.g., write drafts, review drafts, etc.). > I think you can see from the depth of participation there is the necessary critical mass to do the specification work, and more importantly implement that specification. > - the scope of the problem is well defined and understood, that > is, people generally understand what the WG will work on (and > what it won't) and what its actual deliverables will be. > The updated charter describes the problem well and will enable a working group to tackle them. > - there is agreement that the specific deliverables (i.e., > proposed documents) are the right set. > The charter provides a starting point for the proposed set of documents. I'm sure there may be some fine tuning whether to have one very big primary specification, or have it split apart into more manageable pieces. > - it is believed that the WG has a reasonable probability of > having success (i.e., in completing the deliverables in its > charter in a timely fashion). > I believe so, and that there is this critical mass of interested people with backing from their respective companies to do this work and to make it successful. -Wei
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
