Hector Santos wrote:
To Stephen: The introduction of CVS/DNA helped kill MARID and it will help kill DKIM if this isn't put to a stop. Isn't this out the charter scope?
As far as I understand those, yes, they're out of scope. If what Doug was talking about was a clearly described, performant, selective revocation scheme for dkim-signed messages, and if that were something that scaled well and had traction then I believe it would be in scope. Having said that, as it stands I have doubts about every one of those desirable aspects when it comes to his scheme. But personally I'd rather that I (and the list) understood it better before discarding it or, if it garnered consensus, adopting it. Certainly the charter does not say that "only the current specs can be considered, and no other features may be discussed" - if it did, this would not become a wg IMO. I do understand that this group has some history. You (plural:-) however, also have to understand that if this becomes a wg, then the "members" of that new group are those subscribed to the list at that point (who can express themselves cogently etc.) and the fact that some people decided to include/omit feature-foo some time ago, for perfectly good reasons, will have to be explained yet again, (if its not in the specs already) and might even potentially be changed if that's where the wg-consensus is. You can think of me as that kind of new participant if you like:-) But, the dkim specs seem to me to be basically correct enough, that the amount of substantive change required will hopefully be relatively modest, so whichever of you (plural:-) gets nervous every time they see the word "change", well, just relax a bit and have a bit more confidence in what you've already achieved. Stephen. _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
