Branching off from the interminable "justifiable changes" thread....
--On onsdag, desember 21, 2005 23:54:56 -0800 Cullen Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Related to how much the charter pre-supposes the solution, the sentence that "Public keys needed to validate the signatures will be stored in the responsible identity's DNS hierarchy." seems like a pretty heavy constraint on the possible solutions and one that some proposals disagreed with.
I think this is part of "divide and conquer" that is generally argued to be an useful strategy in the IETF: once we buckle down and start writing specs, we're documenting one approach, with one set of advantages and disadvantages, and are trying to prove that *this approach* is feasible. We did that to (I believe) OSPF, IPNG after the "pick one" round, PKIX (vs SPKI), IM when it was split into SIMPLE and the 2 alternatives (with XMPP being a late 4th) and so on. Each of these groups could regard the "what are the alternatives" question as out of scope.
I think that's a good way to get things out the door in a reasonable timeframe; I also think that the IETF at the moment lacks venues for the (probably interminable) discussions about what approaches to a problem exists and whether there are non-chartered alternatives that are worth following up - but I think the approach of chartering a WG to look at one and only one approach is a reasonable one.
Harald _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org