|
It does seem like things are winding down. A couple of things: 1. I'm not sure where we are on the overview draft. Have we completed WGLC on it? The I-D tracker doesn't indicate anything happening. 2. The deployment draft has expired. Is that still going to happen? For new business, I understand that the domains that are "actively" using signatures for non-delivery decisions from specific domains (e.g., PayPal -> GMail) are doing so with a feedback path in place -- they know when mail is being dropped on their behalf. I think we should consider taking on draft-kucherawy-dkim-reporting as a WG work item, as it provides approximately that capability in what would be a standardized way. I realize there will be some disagreement whether this is a good idea, but that's what a chartering discussion is all about. -Jim Stephen Farrell wrote: Folks, we've had no response so far to this request for new work items. If that remains the case, Barry and I plan to let our AD know that its time to declare victory for DKIM and that we'll be heading into dormant mode after the next meeting (which should be very short).Stephen. Stephen Farrell wrote:Hi All, In Dublin [1] we had a few proposals for new work items and presentation of some related work (Murray's stuff). We agreed with the AD that we would not start a discussion about potentially re-chartering until after ADSP and the overview were out of the WG. Well, we're there now, ADSP is with the AD, the overview write-up is in Barry's queue, and Pasi is ok with us starting this discussion now. So, can folks who'd like to propose that we recharter to take on new work post an I-D describing what they'd like and then start a thread here so we can discuss the various ideas. Note that the I-D cutoff for -00's is October 27th. Of course, if you already have an I-D then just start a thread. Please don't make a proposal without an I-D (the new tools make posting a draft so easy, I think this is fair). Barry and I would like us to be able to discuss the various proposals in Minneapolis with a view to crafting new charter text to send to Pasi shortly thereafter if we see rough consensus for taking on some new work items. (BTW - I suspect that if we have no new work items, we won't need a DKIM slot at every IETF in future and so we'll be very close to declaring victory, which is always nice:-) And just in case some folks aren't clear - any new charter text would just be a proposal for a new charter, the IESG make the decision as to whether or not to ok that after requesting feedback from the broader IETF community. Regards, Stephen. [1] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dkim/minutes?item=minutes72.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html |
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
