[ietf-dkim] New issue: DKIM and mailiing lists

[Dave Crocker]

> As I interpret the discussion that we've had with Russ, and the 
> requirement for mailing-list consideration that was added to the charter 
> as a result of concerns from the Vancouver BOF, I believe that an 
> analysis of the mailing-list issues is a prerequisite to having the base 
> spec approved as an RFC (that is, it's not something we can do later).
> 
> I suggest -- and I haven't discussed this with Stephen, so, Stephen, 
> pipe up if you disagree -- that we get a small group (up to three, I 
> think) of participants who are concerned about this and who have 
> appropriate experience, and work up an Internet Draft discussing the 

Folks,

Let me suggest a variation on this theme:

1.  Anyone who has concerns should express them to the list, succinctly and 
concretely.

2.  Anyone who believes there are (or should be) no concerns should express them 
to the list, succinctly and concretely.

3. #1 and #2 should include soliciting comments from various security folks and ADs.

4. Your select design team can formulate their own list and integrate it with 
that produced through #1-3.

My concern is that what you have suggested, on its own, a) has no outside 
direction and is therefore an entirely open-ended task, and b) provides us with 
no basis for knowing whether the work will be responsive to the concerns others 
-- potential critics -- might hit us with later.  Rather than playing a guessing 
game, we should require statements now.

Then, the design team effort is to formulate responses, rather than formulate 
questions.


d/
-- 

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