Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified Mail (dkim)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Ted,

implies the need to be clarify the charter in two ways.  The charter
needs to reaffirm that the IETF has change control over the

We could choose to have every charter repeat every premise for all IETF work.

That would be wasteful, at best.

Having this point in this charter mostly serves as a statement of mistrust, rather than providing any useful education or constraint.


charter also needs to indicate that the working group will consider
the relationship of this work to other, existing IETF technologies.

Again, a nicely open-ended and universal requirement that applies to all working groups. It is therefore meaningless, except for its implicit threat at more overhead and undefined requirements to satisfy.


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

If you have specific questions that you believe the wg needs to attend to, then they should have been stated during the very oppe, very lengthy (and repeated) charter development process.

Calling for the addition of a requirement that cannot be satisfied in any predictable fashion is entirely counter-productive, Ted.


regards,

/d
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]