I believe the text here: > >Since experimentation resulted in significant Internet deployment of these >specifications, the DKIM working group will make every reasonable attempt to >keep changes compatible with what is deployed, making incompatible changes only >when they are necessary for the success of the specifications. implies the need to be clarify the charter in two ways. The charter needs to reaffirm that the IETF has change control over the specifications at this point, so that there is no question over who gets to decide whether an incompatible change is necessary. The charter also needs to indicate that the working group will consider the relationship of this work to other, existing IETF technologies. That does not imply that it needs to adopt them, but explaining why it chose to use, for example, this signature mechanism rather than one of the existing ones would help the IETF understand whether this mechanism is a better point solution, implies a problem with the existing mechanisms which should be fixed in the existing solutions, or should be considered as the basis of a more wholesale replacement. Doing so in its first milestone document seems like a reasonable way to accomplish this, but doing so in the standards-track specifications also seems reasonable. regards, Ted Hardie _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf