Steve Atkins wrote: > 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.
Adding to the responses already posted: It legitimately touches two possible working groups, so there's nothing wrong with its being pursued in the "other" one. I could pretty easily argue that the dominant issue in this bit of work is the reporting mechanism, not the peculiarities of the DKIM info being reported and that, therefore, it's actually better in the ARF wg. Yes, the activity needs DKIM expertise, but I'm pretty sure they'll have that covered, Murray and most of its other participants experience profound amnesia. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
