Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified Mail (dkim)

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

 



Dave Crocker <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > At 5:04 PM -0800 12/20/05, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >>  > Since experimentation resulted in significant Internet deployment
> >>>  of these specifications, the DKIM working group will make every
> >>>  reasonable attempt to keep changes compatible with what is
> >>>  deployed, making incompatible changes only when they are necessary
> >>>  for the success of the specifications.
> >>
> >> As I argued on the DKIM working group list, I think this text is a bad
> >> idea. Part of IETF having change control of a specification is having
> >> the ability to make changes, and the bar of "necessary to the success of
> 
> And Eric seem to keep ignoring, the question of how much change to
> target, when taking in existing technology, is an established point
> that has been experienced a number of times already.  Different
> choices have been made.  Those seeking to field DKIM have reached a
> consensus on charter language that reflect their choice for this case.
> (In other words, Eric, rough consensus has been established on this
> issue.)

Rough consensus inside some subgroup, not inside IETF. Indeed, that's
precisely the question that a Last Call is designed to answer.


> The impression, at this point, is that those seeking to remove all
> limits on the technical changes in fact have no interest in protecting
> the existing work.

That may be your impression, but that doesn't mean it's the case.


> In that light, the folks who developed DKIM would be quite seriously
> crazy to hand it over to the IETF.

I agree that if they aren't willing to cede change control
to IETF then they shouldn't hand it over, yes.


> >> the specification" is way too high for that.
> 
> Too high for what?  Instead of arguing principles Eric, needs to
> indicate what specific technical work that is excluded by this
> language is actually essential to the goals of DKIM.

Yes, you've asserted this repeatedly. And I've repeatedly disagreed.
I don't see much point in us going over that ground again.

-Ekr




_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]