Typically, an interoperability survey is required to go to draft. Considering that you may wish to reverse the order a bit.
Eliot On 2/23/10 10:36 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > OK, dates: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-dkim- >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba >> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 11:32 AM >> To: IETF DKIM WG >> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Proposed new charter >> >> [...] >> +++ New Work +++ >> The working group is now ready to switch its focus to refining and >> advancing the DKIM protocols. The current deliverables for the >> DKIM working group are these: >> >> 1. Advance the base DKIM protocol (RFC 4871) to Draft Standard. >> This is the first priority for the working group. > Unfortunately I don't have any background doing this kind of work, so I'm > forced to guess. But what about the July IETF as a "done-by" date? Is that > a crazy idea? > >> 2. Collect data on the deployment, interoperability, and >> effectiveness of the base DKIM protocol, with consideration >> toward updating the working group's informational documents. > July IETF. > >> 3. Collect data on the deployment, interoperability, and >> effectiveness of the Author Domain Signing Practices protocol >> (RFC 5617), and determine if/when it's ready to advance on the >> standards track. Update it at Proposed Standard, advance it to >> Draft Standard, deprecate it, or determine another disposition, >> as appropriate. > November IETF. > >> 4. Taking into account the data collected in (2) and (3), update >> the overview and deployment/operations documents. These are >> considered living documents, and should be updated periodically, >> as we have more real-world experience. > February 2011 IETF. > >> 5. Consider issues related to mailing lists, beyond what is >> already documented. This includes considerations for mailing >> list software that supports or intends to support DKIM, as well >> as considerations for DKIM/ADSP deployment in the presence of >> mailing lists that do not have such support. Include >> recommendations in the informational documents, or produce a >> new informational document about mailing-list considerations. > I think this can be done in parallel, so November IETF. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
