I don't agree with the premise. I think what was tried and didn't work should be documented in the result that the working group comes out with, but not in the problem statement.
Barry On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 8:57 AM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > > > And yes, that means spam filters and the rest of the ecosystem around > email in which DKIM operates. As in, why exactly are we here? Why can't > industry groups come up with their own solutions? We either document it > now, or argue about it later especially when it becomes plain that there > is no protocol solution and that a BCP is the only possible positive > outcome of this rechartering. An outcome that is specifically allowed > for in the charter I will note. It need not be exhaustive, but it would > be good to document some of the constraints on the solution space as > well as what has been tried and failed. x= is a perfect example. > > Also: there has not been any consensus that the shape and scope of the > two current proposals is correct or sufficient. We are far from the > point that this is just wordsmithing imo, appeals to the contrary not > withstanding. > > Somebody brought up that this could turn into a research project. > Frankly I think that is highly likely the case and is why rechartering > was so problematic. Since M3AAWG can't figure it out with lots of inside > the industry information, what makes anybody think the wider community > would have better insight which is not speculative because it has been > tested and known to work? It speaks volumes that they didn't have a > solution in mind and bring it to IETF to vet in the wider community. > That sure sounds like a research project to me. > > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf-dkim mailing list > Ietf-dkim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
