[ietf-dkim] DKIM charter

[Dave Crocker]

> I'm generally comfortable with this charter, but not really with this.
> "necessary for the success of the specifications" seems like a very
> high bar to clear. While I appreciate that there's a desire by many members
> of the WG to avoid making incompatible changes (hence this language),
> to the extent to which that desire reflects consensus, those
> changes won't be made anyway. I don't believe it's appropriate to
> rule discussion of changes which might be important but not
> "necesssary" out of scope in the charter.


Eric,

The logic of "to the extent to which that desire reflects consensus, those 
changes won't be made anyway" leads directly to having no charter at all. It 
says that consensus-of-the-moment is the only concern and I suspect that 
that is not what you mean.

Whether to preserve previous work -- and how much of it to preserve -- is a 
very basic decision, when previous work is handed over to the IETF.  There 
have been TWO, extensive rounds of discussion and consensus on the current 
set of words, on the open mailing list.

You are correct that the current wording specifies a high bar.  That is 
entirely intentional.  This is version 3 (or 4, depending how you count) of 
this work, with quite a bit of current email using existing work.  (Small 
number of installations, but some of them are very high volume.)

Further, your objection to the current language appears to be entirely 
theoretical, since you are not putting forward any specific work that you 
feel is "important" but would not rise to the level of "necessary for the 
success of the specifications".

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>