[ietf-dkim] DKIM charter update proposal

[SM]

At 20:19 24-10-2009, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>Where I disagree is that we have a sufficient basis to declare it stable.

The interoperability issues have been addressed in the implementation 
I use.  There are still some quirks which are MTA related.

>It has not been very long at all since we rushed a new RFC out to clarify
>things.  What's the basis for confidence that that was it?

If you do DS and you want changes later, I'll say that a recycle is 
needed.  I am not arguing for or against DS.

>It is my expectation that if there are any significant warts left in the
>basic protocol it will become apparent in large scale deployments where
>DKIM signature data is being used as an input to other processes (like ADSP
>or private reputation services).  I don't see a lot of evidence that such

It's wide deployment and not large scale deployment that identify 
warts.  I do not have to write about assessment as that is out of 
scope. :-)  The choice is about where to direct the effort to move 
DKIM forward.

DS is a good time to document warts.  DS would mean that this WG is stable. :-)

At 16:17 23-10-2009, Jim Fenton wrote:
>To summarize, I support waiting at least a year, perhaps more, before
>progressing the WG specifications.  Whether that means that the WG shuts

If it takes that long for the WG to be stable, so be it.

Regards,
-sm