Domain Keys Identified Mail
charter-ietf-dkim-05

[Ballot comment]
Supporting Lars's block. Shouldn't be there a clear problem statement to actually to work on this WG? We ask the question in the BoF on whether the problem is clear or not/clearly understood by the attendees or not. It seems this does not meets that bar. Or may be I am misunderstanding something.

[Ballot block]
# GEN AD review of charter-ietf-dkim-04-05

CC @larseggert

## Discuss

### "A", paragraph 2
```
  The DKIM working group will first develop a clear problem statement, which it
  may choose to publish.
```
This seems super-unusual. Assuming this problem statement informs the following
group work, it should be published?

### Chairs

Who are the chairs?

[Ballot comment]
## Comments

### "A", paragraph 8
```
  Apr 2023 - Post a consensus problem statement draft to the datatracker (may not go to the
            IESG)
```
See DISCUSS.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for {doc-rev}
CC @ekline

## Nits

* The ends of both paragraphs one and two appear to define problematic
  email content, in nearly the same terms.  Perhaps de-dup?