Colleagues, On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 12:08 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> Exactly. Any proposed modifications to DKIM should be based on DKIM > itself. Anything else is off-topic. It's not like you can't propose the > ARC modifications to DKIM in terms of DKIM itself, though all of those > modifications have nothing to do with the current charter. > Two things: 1) Please endeavor to lower the temperature on this thread. 2) If the chairs have decided, or decide in the future, that ARC has been discussed and consensus is to consider that topic closed, that's their purview. However, such a decision cannot be derived directly from the charter text I'm looking at. In particular, this text: "The DKIM working group will first develop and publish a clear problem statement. Then, it will produce one or more technical specifications that propose replay-resistant mechanisms. The working group will prefer solutions compatible with DKIM's broad deployment, and there will be an expectation that these solutions will have been through implementation and interoperability testing before publication." ...does not, to me, constrain the solution space to DKIM itself. If there's a solution to DKIM replay outside of DKIM itself, then it's fair game. -MSK, ART AD
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
