On 12/23/22 11:38 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 7:25 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
<[email protected]> wrote:
I've synthesized the feedback to date into a new update to the
charter text. It calls out the order of operations the group
seems to prefer, and makes explicit the possible output of a "best
practices" update. Let me know if this is a step in the right
direction or the wrong one.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dkim/
Note that the next IESG telechat with room on it won't be until
the new year at this point, so this won't advance before then.
Having heard no further feedback, I've moved the draft charter to the
next state, which will trigger the first of two IESG reviews early in
the new year. It will go out for full IETF review after it passes the
first of those.
Shouldn't the problem statement explore whether there is a plausible
tractable solution before it moves on to protocol work? That is, if
there isn't a tractable solution the wg should go into hibernation
again. I'm pretty sure that I brought this quite a while ago. Of if not
the problem statement, afterward just evaluating for a go-no go decision
before starting any work.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
