On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 12:42 AM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> wrote:
> > I don't think there's any point in pursuing solutions that require a human > to read/understand anything about header fields. > > Having reviewed the proposals again, it seems like anything that actively > makes replays harder without adding additional indirect mail flow failures > amounts to a plan to document the flow of the email to provide additional > signal for receivers to understand what's been replayed versus what's a > normal indirect flow. > > I'm inclined to think that instead of specifying specific drafts to > consider, the charter should point to the problem statement draft instead. > The drafts don't all have to be developed by the working group. It's traditional for the charter to offer some drafts as things to consider, as starting points for discussion. The working group can then choose to adopt, all, some, or none of them. I think it was Barry who mentioned that a problem statement could be in a document that never gets published. I believe we could also include a problem statement in the charter itself, if it can be brief enough and doesn't need examples and so forth to make its point. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
