Barry Leiba wrote:
> Coming back to this: I've still seen very little direct input on the
> charter proposal.  JD likes it.  Dave made some specific comments,
> which I responded to; there've been no other comments on what Dave's
> said.  There've been no other specific proposals for changes to the
> text.
>
> Franck suggested gathering data on whether DKIM has been useful.  I
> responded to that, saying that I don't think it's a necessary issue
> for chartering at this stage.  Agreement or disagreement with that
> would be useful.
>
> Bill suggested looking at extensions for additional signature
> delegation, Michael Hammer agreed, and a thread branched off from
> there.  Is that still an active consideration for the charter, or not?
>  Charles wants to see something more about guidance for mailing lists.
>  Is that an active consideration?
>
> Some have opined that it's even too early to consider taking the base
> DKIM protocol to Draft Standard; let's make sure we have consensus on
> that point, one way or the other.
>   

I'm generally in this latter camp.  The six-month timer might be useful
for some protocols, but the huge installed base and mission-critical
nature of email causes everything to move more slowly from a deployment
standpoint.

It's fairly easy to demonstrate interoperability of protocols, but
usefulness is much more difficult.  DKIM is an infrastructure protocol,
designed to provide a basis for other mechanisms, such as domain-based
reputation, to operate.  Those other mechanisms are as yet nascent; how
does one judge usefulness at this point?

If this working group does continue, I'd suggest that updates to the
service overview (RFC 5585) and deployment/operations document also be
on the table.  Those are the most appropriate places for the results of
operational experience to be described.

To summarize, I support waiting at least a year, perhaps more, before
progressing the WG specifications.  Whether that means that the WG shuts
down and restarts or just goes dormant is a question for the IETF
process wizards.

-Jim


_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

Reply via email to