At 9:07 AM -0500 12/21/05, Tony Hansen wrote: >I would be happy with the text that was used in the xmpp charter: > > Although not encouraged, non-backwards-compatible changes to the > basis specifications will be acceptable if the working group > determines that the changes are required to meet the group's > technical objectives and the group clearly documents the reasons > for making them. > >This text still keeps the bar high for unnecessary changes, was already >vetted through an existing charter, and helped us through a similar >impasse when xmpp was chartered. > > Tony Hansen > tony@xxxxxxx I agree with Tony on the benefits of re-using this language, and it certainly works for me. I'd also like to thank Stephen Farrell for pointing out the overview document as a logical place to answer the relationship to other IETF technologies questions. The current language for that work item says: > An informational RFC providing an overview of DKIM and how it can fit into >overall messaging systems, implementation and migration considerations, and >outlining potential DKIM applications and future extensions. I suggest adding "how it relates to other IETF message signature technologies". Given that this document already discusses other potential DKIM applications and future extensions, Stephen is right that the discussion fits here better than either place I earlier suggested. regards, Ted Hardie >Barry Leiba wrote: >> Eric Rescorla wrote: >> >>>> 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. >> >> Can someone propose an alternative to the first-quoted paragraph above, >> from the proposed charter, that keeps the sense that the specifications >> we're agreeing to use as a starting point be strong conflict-resolution >> guides, and that they be used to steer the discussion... without making >> it seem, incorrectly, that the WG is not willing to accept changes that >> make sense to make? >> >> Barry > >_______________________________________________ >Ietf mailing list >Ietf@xxxxxxxx >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf