[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: revised Proposed Charter




Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
It seems to me that there are two possible effects a limited charter can produce. One that precludes further work in a given direction, and one that allows that further work to happen in the future. Now, nobody's omniscient so the latter is always a calculated risk, but it sure seems to me that DKIM with respect to reputation is in the latter rather than former category. I for one would be rather dismayed if it did not lend itself well to reputation/accredation systems. It seems to me that the risk is pretty low, so divide and conquer seems more prudent.


There is a third effect that I have seen in WS-Security. The original
charter is so over-constrained leading to excessive debate over minutiae
and the whole process is slowed rather than speeded up.

I guess I'm less fearful of that than opening an entirely new and decidedly less investigated area as part of the wg's deliverables. I think that with ssp and auth-res on the plate too we have quite a lot to get done. We also have a requirements draft. Maybe that's the right place to put hooks to make dkim rep/accredation friendly? Frankly I'm not sure I know what is currently missing in DKIM to build a name rather than IP based reputation system on top of the DKIM foundation.

Mike