Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Dec 21, 2005, at 12:23 PM, william(at)elan.net wrote: > Let's be honest: We're not really arguing about the degree to which > the WG is biased towards the specifics of the DKIM draft, but rather > whether or not it is "biased towards" (I would rather say focused on) > this one fundamental approach to the exclusion of all others. Well, that may not be what you're arguing about, but it's certainly what I'm arguing about, at least at the present moment. The language under debate doesn't impact the question you raise one way or the other. The first paragraph of the charter quite clearly states that the WG will be working on domain-level signatures. So, the language under debate is purely about ruling out incompatible changes that still fall along these same general lines. > Domain-level email signatures are a pretty good idea, one of many > that, taken all together, just *might* help us preserve the utility of > email and other open electronic communications. The purpose of the > new WG should be to produce the best possible domain-level email > signature standard, using DKIM as a concrete but reasonably flexible > starting point. Nobody is going to argue against considering really > meaningful improvements to DKIM, even if they introduce > incompatibilities, Then why the push to have charter language designed to do exactly that? -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf