On Oct 19, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Re: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dkim-reporting > >>> I'd be fine with doing that through this WG, although we have chosen >>> on several occasions not to take up that draft as a WG item. >>> Instead, it's now in the proposed charter for the ARF WG. >> >> It's a DKIM thing. If it's going to be done, this group is the group >> to do it. >> >> Backdooring it through another group is, at best, not going to be as >> effective I don't think. > > It's not a question of a "back door". This WG decided some time ago > that it was a good idea, but out of scope. As far as I can tell, that > hasn't changed, so it's still out of scope. > > In any case, once it's a Proposed Standard, no one will care what > working group sent it through.
Yup. But it's going to get better input from this group of people rather than the ARF group, so whether it's sent through the ARF group, this group or as an individual submission it'll benefit from input from the people in this group. Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
