On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 11:19 AM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> On 3/10/23 7:46 AM, Laura Atkins wrote: > > > On 10 Mar 2023, at 00:30, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> <m...@mtcc.com> > wrote: > > Now that we have a chair, I have a question about process wrt to the > charter. The charter states that either the working group will produce > documents addressing the problem, or it will produce a document saying why > it can't do anything about it within the IETF confines. I strongly suspect > that that the latter will be the conclusion but I don't know what the > process would look like to come to that conclusion. It seems like it > entails a long list of "can't do this"'s etc followed by "we give up". But > that list could be nearly endless if it is allowed to get out of hand. So > what does it take to come to that conclusion from a process standpoint? > > > Our current milestones are: > > Apr 2023 - Post a consensus problem statement draft to the datatracker (may > > not go to the IESG) > > Jun 2023 - Proposal regarding plans for remaining document(s) presented to > > the AD > > Dec 2023 - Submit technical specifications for replay-resistant DKIM > > enhancement(s) to the IESG at Proposed Standard > > > Per the charter, Or Not. That is what I'm asking about. > Between the milestones and the charter text, the charter text is typically the more important of the two. Milestones can be edited without full IESG review, while the charter can't. So if the working group needs more time than April or June, that can be negotiated. Plus, frankly, I made up those dates during chartering. The chairs and I haven't discussed whether they're reasonable or whether something else should be there. If people want to propose adjustments, I'm all ears. -MSK, this time with the AD hat on
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
