On 2/2/23 8:22 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Colleagues,
The IESG is prepared to approve the charter overall. There was one
blocking point about publishing the problem statement, which is that
the IESG would like that not to be a "maybe". I think that's a
reasonable change to make.
There is also the fact that I have not secured co-chairs. I only have
one volunteer, and I'd like to pair up that person with someone that's
been an IETF working group chair before. I've approached a few people,
all of whom have declined. We're stuck here until I can resolve that
blank spot in the plan.
If you have any suggestions, or have chaired before and are willing to
volunteer, please feel free to reach out to me.
So here is what sticks in my craw. I think I brought up the problem
statement, but maybe somebody else did before me. It's easy to say "here
is the problem, fix it!" without any context to what any proposed fixes
might break. It would be really bad imo to slap out a minimal problem
statement and then proceed to solutions without any analysis of what any
solution space should and should not do at a protocol level. I guess
that's a little bit more requirement-y, but I'm not exactly sure what
process-wise I'm asking for. DKIM is extremely widely deployed so we
need to be really careful about not breaking existing practices or doing
unnatural acts that have implications to the wider email community.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
