>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Crocker <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Dave> John K., et al, Feliz año nuevo; Selamat tahun baru.
>> I do believe that it is not desirable to create standards that
>> would give a gift of either technology or justification to
>> those who would use them to fragment the network. I believe it
>> is especially
Dave> I suspect we will not find anyone in the IETF who thinks
Dave> otherwise. Certainly my own reaction to your statement,
Dave> here, was "Yes!! Absolutely Correct!"
Dave> Then I tried to consider the implications of the statement,
Dave> in the current context, and I realized that I have no idea
Dave> what pragmatic import it has.
Dave> I have no idea how to apply this caveat to the DKIM work.
Dave> DKIM is DKIM. As a technology it has a specific intent and
Dave> its core is well-defined -- and actually pretty simple --
Dave> with well-understood properties. The core is similar to a
Dave> number of technologies that have been in use for at least 15
Dave> years.
I think John is expressing a concern similar to the one I expressed at
the BOF.
Roughly we need to consider how DKIM is used, not just define a
technology. We need to talk about bad uses of DKIM as soon as we are
aware that they are sufficinetly likely that they are worth
considering.
We need to write BCPs as soon as we are in a position to know what
best practice actually is.
Now, other than acknowledging that we need to eventually do these
things, I don't think this has any impact on the charter. On the
other hand, John replied to a message about three levels removed from
the charter and proposed no specific changes to the charter. So I
don't have any evidence that he planned to change the charter either.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf