On 12/23/2022 11:38 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
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.
The draft looks good. The specified work tasks are:
The DKIM working group will first develop a clear problem statement, which it may choose to publish. Then, it will produce one or more technical specifications that propose replay-resistant mechanisms.
A problem statement needs to state the problem well enough for an average reader to understand not just its gist -- which arguably is already provided in the second paragraph of the charter -- but the details of scenarios that produce the problem. A sufficiently detailed characterization might, indeed, warrant a separate document, though I hope that won't be needed. On the other hand, a document with that detail that also explores 'solution' issues -- without diving too far in their details and definitely without choosing winners -- might be a very useful milestone for garnering wider community understanding (and even participation.) It's worth being clear about problem vs. solution. So a problem statement, per se, shouldn't cover solutions, since, well, it's a problem statement and not a solutions statement.
The "will produce one or more" is, of course, optimistic, since wg efforts can fail. But noting that in a charter isn't all that useful, especially since it's never part of the plan. More significantly, suggesting more than one nicely alerts to the possibilities that a) we might require more than one to get things under control enough, and/or 2) there might be competing specifications worth pursuing.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker@mastodon.social
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
