On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On onsdag, desember 21, 2005 05:36:08 -0800 "william(at)elan.net"
<william@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I also think that if allowed to be presented alternatives to putting
public keys in DNS, those would technically be found superior and less
damaging to internet. Other aspects of proposal also had alternatives
that are superior, but by bypassing MASS and presenting DKIM in current
form with constraints on discussion, all that "mess" is avoided.
My usual immediate response to anything that contains the phrase "allowed to
be presented" is "where's the draft".
Yes, the drafts and proposals were published as part of MASS.
I have links to most of that at:
http://www.elan.net/~william/emailsecurity/emailsignatures-comparisonmatrix.htm
Yes, the DKIM group clearly purposely bypassed discussions as part of
MASS (i.e. ietf open forum) in order to do it in private and leave only
one authorization method (i.e. public keys in dns; it so happens that
public keys in dns is also core of the Yahoo's patent and other
authorization method do not have such IPR constraints).
And yes in case you don't know BoF chairs and AD did deny request to
present alternatives to DKIM when it was still called MASS BoF.
MASS had its BOF and its mailing list, so I'm assuming that whoever
participated in that discussion discovered the fact that they could publish
an internet-draft for ANYTHING without prior approval, as long as it was
done in their own name and not in the IETF's.
So in this case, the drafts might actually be out there.
If so - what's the draft names?
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf