Pre-picking one solution (Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified Mail) (dkim)

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

 



Branching off from the interminable "justifiable changes" thread....

--On onsdag, desember 21, 2005 23:54:56 -0800 Cullen Jennings <fluffy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Related to how much the charter pre-supposes the solution, the sentence
that "Public keys needed to validate the signatures will be stored
in the responsible identity's DNS hierarchy." seems like a pretty heavy
constraint on the possible solutions and one that some proposals disagreed
with.

I think this is part of "divide and conquer" that is generally argued to be an useful strategy in the IETF: once we buckle down and start writing specs, we're documenting one approach, with one set of advantages and disadvantages, and are trying to prove that *this approach* is feasible. We did that to (I believe) OSPF, IPNG after the "pick one" round, PKIX (vs SPKI), IM when it was split into SIMPLE and the 2 alternatives (with XMPP being a late 4th) and so on. Each of these groups could regard the "what are the alternatives" question as out of scope.

I think that's a good way to get things out the door in a reasonable timeframe; I also think that the IETF at the moment lacks venues for the (probably interminable) discussions about what approaches to a problem exists and whether there are non-chartered alternatives that are worth following up - but I think the approach of chartering a WG to look at one and only one approach is a reasonable one.

                Harald

_______________________________________________

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]