Jim Fenton wrote: > 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.
Its done with WGLC (I sent out a note a while back.) Barry's just done the PROTO write-up, so it's essentially with the AD. Datatracker should catch up soon. > > 2. The deployment draft has expired. Is that still going to happen? Yes. > > 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. Ok. Looks like a good agenda item for MSP. But of course, folks should discuss on-list if they have opinions/ideas. S. > > -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
