> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] > On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 10:27 AM > To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Work group future > > I think it can be immensely useful if the list plainly says /why/ the > WG closes. As Rolf noted, DKIM is not (yet) a well refined protocol > that any of us would recommend his grandma to make use of.
I disagree. I wouldn't tell my grandma to use SMTP either, but it's pretty well-established. DKIM isn't a userland thing. > I understand that such meta-standardization explanations are not > IETF's core business, but there seems to be a recurring pattern of > prematurely shut down WGs, for subjects related to spam. I think when it's clear there's no more progress that can be made, you close down and move on. You can always start up a WG later when there's a chance for better progress or new work to be done. Our outstanding chartered items have been getting nowhere for years. It seems nonsensical to keep it open. > My guess is > that the paramount impact that spam has rouses too many people, so > that WGs become overpopulated, discussions difficult, and people > nervous. Is it so? It's certainly true, but I don't think keeping this WG open in spite of this solves anything. -MSK _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
