[ietf-dkim] DKIM charter update proposal

[Daniel Black]

On Monday 19 October 2009 02:54:47 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.

I think supporting data collection by those deploying it would be facilitated 
by getting http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dkim-reporting-05 to a 
RFC would be good. Eventually we should come back to data collection later 
though.

> 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?
Doug and myself have been refining a draft that should be out soon for comment 
so I think this is good for the charter.

>  Charles wants to see something more about guidance for mailing lists.
>  Is that an active consideration?
Definitely.  By giving then guidance up frount there will be fewer, or 
consistent signature failures for the verifiers to handle.

> 
> 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.
+1 here
> 
> I'd like to settle very soon on what, if anything, to do about
> re-chartering.  Please address my specific points, above, so we can
> get there.  And please keep the discussion focused on the charter,
> without going into lengthy discussion of details of the work.
> 
> Barry, as chair
>