[ietf-dkim] Re-thinking the organization of the DKIM spec
mike at mtcc.com
Thu Jan 13 16:57:55 PST 2011
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory:
Barry Leiba wrote:
> The chairs are happy with how this discussion has been going so far,
> except that we remind people that discussion of any details of
> iSchedule or any other protocol that might cite DKIM is entirely out
> of scope -- we need to accept that people want to use parts of the
> DKIM mechanism, and not, at this point, criticise their design.
> We'll let the discussion go through the end of next week -- let's say,
> through the end of the day on Thursday, 20 Jan -- and then we'll make
> a consensus call. Between now and then, please continue to discuss
> specifically the idea of whether the right answer for the overall good
> of the DKIM specification is to make the proposed split now, or not
> to. And at some point between now and then, please make it clear
> where you stand on the question, so we can fairly judge consensus.
> We also thought that the outline of the proposed split would be enough
> to work with, but there've been a lot of questions of the details. We
> understand that the editors have done a draft of the split that they
> will soon be ready to post as (individual) Internet drafts, and we've
> asked them to post them. When they do, please keep in mind that they
> are there to answer the questions that are coming up, and NOT to has
> out all the split details now. If the working group approves the
> split, we can hammer out the details then. Use these drafts to see,
> specifically, what's being proposed, understand that IF we agree to go
> in that direction they will still be up for changes, and don't get
> mired in arguing the details now.
> On a procedural note: the chairs think that it's within the charter to
> decide to satisfy charter work item 1 (DKIM to Draft Standard) by
> making this split, and we do not think there's a procedural issue
> raised here. Should we decide NOT to make the split and to proceed to
> Draft Standard with a single 4871bis document, the chairs DO think
> that revisiting the question is splitting the documents later -- a
> fair approach to this -- would require rechartering.
> Again, please continue the discussion of the proposed split through 20
> January, and let us know where you stand as we evaluate consensus.
> Barry, as chair
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
More information about the ietf-dkim