> Personally, I think each on-the-face-of-it-reasonable suggested > improvement has to be considered, but the more time passes and > the more the specifications are mature, the higher the bar is > raised. Since these specs. have been around a while and have > been implemented it seems reasonable to start this WG with a > higher bar than one where neither of those things are true. I strongly disagree. Implementation of a draft specification is useful to establish a proof-of-concept and perhaps (especially if there are multiple independent implementations), to unconver potential ambiguities in the draft specification. Implementation is not however a good indicator of protocol soundness. This might have been sufficient in ARPAnet days, but on the scale of today's Internet it is necessary to perform extensive analysis and review - neither of which have been done for DKIM. So no, it's not appropriate to raise the bar for changes on the basis of existing DKIM implementation. At most, the charter should specify that new DKIM signatures be distinguishable from signatures made according to the old DKIM specification. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf