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

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

 



John C Klensin wrote:
In addition, there is, I think, one other approach that might be
appropriate, but only in very limited circumstances.  That
approach applies where there is a well-thought-out approach with
design team consensus, evidence of implementation, and no
clearly-identified technical concerns.    Then, and only then, I
think that an approach of "the WG gets to challenge the base
spec and assumptions, but to change them only if there is good
reason and consensus to do so" is plausible with a standards
track target.  I think that XMPP, and the XMPP language,
probably is an instance of that case.

Other than claims and counterclaims, I've seen little that would
permit the IETF community to form a consensus about exactly what
stage the DKIM work (and implementation, deployment, and
demonstrate that it accomplishes whatever is being claimed) is
really at, a consensus that seems to me to be necessary to
determine whether it should be chartered as a WG if  there are
going to be any restrictions at all on what that WG can
consider.  That strikes me as sad since, beyond philosophical
debates, it seems to me to be the key issue.

I obviously think it's closer to #4 than anything else. Note
I wasn't weighing in about whether this piece of word-smithy
vs that was better or not, just my concern that the lack of
negotiation/feedback make the backward compatibility problem
far more nettlesome than other protocols that have that
luxury. There is a substantial risk that a bunch of gratuitous
thrashing around -- or worse a greenfield makeover ala MEGACO --
will cause this effort to crater. Given MARID, I don't think
we get many chances and that this is really a situation where
the best is the enemy of the good.

As such, I think it's reasonable for the charter to limit the
scope of changes to those that will really tighten up the mature
parts of the specs instead of a, IMO, futile -- and destructive --
trip back to first principles. False dichotomy? Maybe, but not
out of the question if there is no limit at all, and that's
pretty bothersome for those of us who advocated taking this
to ietf and tried really hard to make this look like
something that would pass ietf muster.

Finally, I understand that for many people there are larger
principles at stake about the nature of ietf, etc, etc. I can't
tell you how thrilled I am that we are the posterboy for _that_
argument.

		Mike

_______________________________________________

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]